This paper investigates the boundary behavior of holomorphic families of Newton maps of degree at least 3, analyzing their measure limits and rescaling limits through Berkovich dynamics.
Contribution
It provides new estimates for the weak limits of maximal measures and a comprehensive description of rescaling limits for these families.
Findings
01
Estimate of weak limits of maximal measures
02
Complete description of rescaling limits
03
Application of Berkovich dynamics to Newton maps
Abstract
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps. By studying the related Berkovich dynamics, we obtain an estimate of the weak limit of the maximal measures of Nt. Moreover, we give a complete description of the rescaling limits for {Nt}.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Advanced Numerical Analysis Techniques · Mathematics and Applications
Full text
Iteration at the Boundary of Newton Maps
Hongming Nie
Department of Mathematics, Indiana University
831 East Third Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps. By studying the related Berkovich dynamics, we obtain an estimate of the weak limit of the maximal measures of Nt. Moreover, we give a complete description of the rescaling limits for {Nt}.
1. Introduction
Let P be a degree d≥2 monic polynomial with distinct roots. It can be written as
[TABLE]
where r1,…,rd are distinct complex numbers. The Newton map of P is defined by
[TABLE]
We also write N{r1,⋯,rd} to indicate the roots of P.
As an algorithm for finding the roots of a polynomial, it is also known as Newton’s method, which is a generally convergent for quadratic polynomials. Cayley [8] noticed the difficulties for Newton’s method to find roots of higher degree polynomials. However, there is a finite universal set such that for any root of any suitably normalized polynomial of degree d, there is an initial point in the universal set whose orbit converges to this root under iterations of the corresponding Newton’s method [21]. We refer [19, 30, 31, 43, 47] for more details.
As a dynamical system, Newton map exhibits nice properties. The Julia sets of Newton maps are always connected [44]. Moreover, the cubic Newton maps have locally connected Julia sets except in some very specific case [39]. For the combinatorial properties of Newton maps, every postcritically finite cubic Newton map can be constructed by mating two cubic polynomials [48]. For more dynamical properties of Newton maps, we refer [28, 27, 32]. We also refer [49] for an overview of Newton maps. And there also contains detailed background of known results for Newton maps in [40].
The goal of the present article is to investigate the limiting behaviors of a degenerate holomorphic family of Newton maps. We mainly focus on the weak limits of measures of maximal entropy and the rescaling limits. In the subsequent article [35], we will study the compactifications of the related moduli spaces. Now we set up the statement.
For d≥2, the space Ratd of degree d complex rational maps can be naturally identified to a dense open subset of P2d+1. And in the projective coordinates, for f∈Ratd, we can write
[TABLE]
where Fa([X:Y]) and Fb([X:Y]) are two relatively prime homogeneous polynomials of degree d. Generally, for f∈P2d+1, it determines the coefficients for a pair of homogeneous polynomials of degree d. We can
write
[TABLE]
where Hf(X,Y)=gcd(Fa([X:Y]),Fb([X:Y])) and f^:=[fa([X:Y]):fb([X:Y])] is a rational map of degree at most d. The indeterminacy locus I(d)⊂P2d+1 is the collection of f=Hff^, where f^ is a constant in P1 and this constant is a hole of f, that is, it is a zero of Hf.
Following DeMarco [9], we can associate each f∈P2d+1 a probability measure μf. If f∈Ratd, the measure μf is the unique measure such that the measure-theoretic entropy of f attains its maximum. If f=Hff^∈P2d+1∖Ratd with degf^≥1, the measure μf is an atomic measure defined on the holes of f and all their preimages under f^. If f=Hff^∈P2d+1∖Ratd with degf^=0, the measure μf is an atomic measure defined on the holes of f. Then the map f→μf is continuous if and only if f∈I(d) [9, Theorem 0.1].
If we restrict to holomorphic families {ft}, then function ft→μft is better behaved. Let PBer1 be the Berkovich space over the completion of the field of formal Puiseux series and let f:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {ft}. If ft converges to a point in I(d), by regarding the Berkovich dynamical system (f,PBer1) as the limit of dynamical systems (ft,C) as t→0, DeMarco and Faber [11, Theorem B] proved the weak limit μ of measures μft exists and it is a countable sum of atoms. Later they [12] gave a method to compute the measure μ by introducing and studying what they call an analytically stable pair (f,Γ), where Γ⊂PBer1 is a finite set of type II points. Combining with [9, Theorem 0.1], the measure μ satisfying
[TABLE]
where c is the constant value of f^ and dc(f) is its depth, that is, dc(f) is the multiplicity of c as a zero of Hf.
We now apply this to Newton maps. Suppose {Nr(t)} is a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps with r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}. If Nr(t) converges to a point N∈I(d), as t→0, then all ri(t)s converge to z=∞, see Lemma 2.15. Thus z=∞ is the unique hole of N and the depth d∞(N)=d. Let μ be the weak limit of the maximal measures μt for Nr(t). The inequality (1.1) implies
[TABLE]
But the lower bound in inequality (1.2) is not sharp. Our first result is to give a better lower bound for μ({∞}).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps. Suppose Nt converges to a point in I(d). Let μt be the maximal measure for Nt and let μ be the weak limit of measures μt. Then
[TABLE]
In particular, if the Gauss point ξg∈PBer1 is a periodic point for the associated map N for {Nt}, then μ=δ∞.
We point out that in general the lower bound in inequality (1.3) is not sharp either. For example, for quadratic Newton maps, we always have μ=δ∞, see Corollary 4.13.
To prove Theorem 1.1, we consider the associated map N:PBer1→PBer1 for {Nt}. Let V be the set of type II repelling fixed points of N. Consider the convex hull HVξg of V and the Gauss point ξg. If the orbit O(ξg) of ξg under the map N does not intersects with HVξg, we consider the vertices set Γ={ξg} and study the equilibrium Γ-measures on PBer1. Then in this case we can prove μ=δ∞. If the orbit O(ξg) intersects with HVξg, we construct the vertices sets Γ such that the pairs (N,Γ) are analytically stable and then apply [12, Theorem C].
Since the indetermiancy locus I(d) is the set of points where the iterate maps P2d+1\dasharrowP2dn+1 are discontinuous [9, Lemma 2.2], it is interesting to explore the limits of holomorphic families converging to points in I(d) under iterations. More naturally, we work on the moduli space ratd:=Ratd/PGL2(C), modulo the action by conjugation of the group of Möbius transformations.
In quadratic case, the existence of such interesting limits was observed by Stimson [46] in his analysis of the asymptotic behavior of some algebraic curves in rat2. The idea of rescaling limits also appeared in Epstein’s work [14] proving some hyperbolic components are precompact in rat2. Kiwi[25] defined rescaling limits explicitly. For a holomorphic family {ft}, the rescaling limits arise as limits Mt−1∘ftq∘Mt→g of rescaled iterates where the convergence is locally uniform outside some finite subset of P1. By studying the associated dynamical system (f,PBer1) and relating the rescalings to the periodic repelling type II points in PBer1, Kiwi proved for any given holomorphic one-parameter family of degree d≥2 rational maps, there are at most 2d−2 dynamically independent rescalings such that the corresponding rescaling limits are not postcritically finite [25, Theorem 1]. Later, applying the trees of spheres, which is based on the Deligne-Mumford compactifications of the moduli spaces of stable curves, and considering the dynamical systems between trees of spheres, Arfeux proved the same results [3, Theorem 1] about the interesting rescaling limits. Moreover, the existence of a periodic sphere for a dynamical cover between trees of spheres corresponds to the existence of a rescaling limit [3, Theorem 2, Theorem 3]. Recently, Arfeux and Cui [2] announced for any arbitrary large integer n, there is a holomorphic family in Ratd for d≥3 such that it has n dynamically independent rescalings leading to postcritically finite and nonmonomial rescaling limits.
For a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps, we give a complete description for its rescaling limits.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps. Then
(1)
up to equivalence, {Nt} has at most d−1 rescalings of period 1. Moreover, each such rescaling leads to a rescaling limit that is conjugate to a degenerated Newton map.
2. (2)
{Nt}* has at most d−3 dynamically independent rescalings of periods at least 2. Moreover, the corresponding rescaling limit for each such rescaling is conjugate to a polynomial of degree at most 2d−3.*
Let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nt}. The period 1 rescalings for {Nt} correspond to the type II repelling fixed points of N. To prove part (1), we show the type II repelling fixed points are the points that are the branch points in the convex hull whose endpoints are the type I fixed points of N. To prove (2), we first consider the ramification locus RN and give sufficient and necessary conditions for the existence of generalized rescalings of period at least 2. Then we count the available critical points of N. It will give us the upper bound of the rescalings of higher periods. The main ingredient we use to show the corresponding rescaling limits are conjugate to polynomials is Theorem 1.1. If there exists a rescaling {Mt} of period q≥2, then up to dynamical dependence, we can assume Mt is affine. By the continuity of the composition maps, Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt converges to a point in I(d). We consider the associated map N=M−1∘N∘M of the holomorphic family {Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt}. Then the Gauss point ξg is a periodic point of N. Thus, by Theorem 1.1, the weak limit of the maximal measures of Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt is the measure δ∞. By the invariance of the maximal measures and the continuity of the map f→μf if f∈I(d), we know the measure associated to the subalgebraic limit for Mt−1∘Ntq∘Mt is δ∞. Hence, we can show the rescaling limit is a polynomial. We mention here that (2) can also be obtained from the Berkovich dynamics of the map N, see Remark 5.26. Moreover, the subalgrbraic limit of Mt−1∘Ntq∘Mt has a unique hole at ∞. Therefore, the upper bound of the degree of the rescaling limits implies this subalgrbraic limit is not semistable, see Proposition 5.30.
Outline
In section 2, we recall the relevant backgrounds of Newton maps and prove there is a unique indeterminacy point in boundary of the space of Newton maps, see Proposition 2.18. Section 3 is devoted to describe the basic Berkovich dynamics of Newton maps. It also contains a backgrounds of Berkovich spaces and related dynamics of rational maps. The goal of section 4 is to study the degenerate holomorphic families of Newton maps in measure-theoretic view. We first state DeMarco and Faber’s results about limiting measures, and then prove Theorem 1.1. Finally we prove Theorem 1.2 and related results in section 5. Kiwi’s results are included in this section.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Iterate Maps on Ratd
For d≥1, consider the map
[TABLE]
sending f to its n-th iterate fn. Then Ψn is proper for all n≥2 and all d≥2 [9, Corollary 0.3]. The iterate map Ψn extends to a rational map
[TABLE]
Define I(d)⊂P2d+1 is the collection of f=Hff^ with degf^=0 and the constant value of f^ is a hole of f, that is
[TABLE]
The following result, due to DeMarco, claims the indeterminacy loci of the maps Ψn are I(d) and gives the formula for iteration.
Lemma 2.1**.**
[9, Lemma 2.2]**
For d≥1 and n≥2, the indeterminacy locus I(Ψn) of the iterate map Ψn:P2d+1\dasharrowP2dn+1 is I(d). Moreover, for f=Hff^∈P2d+1∖I(d),
which sends a pair (f,g) to the composition f∘g is continuous away from
[TABLE]
Moreover, for (f,h)=(Hff^,Hgg^)∈P2d+1×P2e+1∖I(d,e),
[TABLE]
where g^=[Pg:Qg].
2.2. Convergence
In this subsection, we consider various notations of convergence of maps in the space of (degenerate) rational maps. Mainly, we define the subalgebraic convergence and show the relations between subalgebraic convergence and locally uniform convergence on the complement of a finite set in P1.
First recall that for t∈D, a collection {ft}⊂P2d+1 is a 1-dimensional holomorphic family of degree d≥1 rational maps if the map D→P2d+1, sending t to ft, is a holomorphic map such that ft∈Ratd if t=0. We say {ft} is degenerate if f0∈Ratd. A holomorphic family of degree 1 rational maps is called a moving frame.
Definition 2.3**.**
For a holomorphic family {ft}⊂P2d+1, we say ft converges to f=Hff^∈P2d+1 subalgebraically if ft converges to f in P2d+1 as t→0. If, in addition, degf^=d, we say ft converges to f∈P2d+1 algebraically.
Let’s use the notations ftsaf and ftaf for subalgebraic convergence and algebraic convergence, respectively. Moreover, for a finite subset S⊂P1, denote ft∙f^ on P1∖S if ft converges to f locally uniformly on P1∖S, and denote ft⇉f^ if ft converges to f uniformly on P1.
Lemma 2.4**.**
[25, Lemma 3.2 ]**
For a holomorphic {ft}⊂Ratd, suppose that ftsaf=Hff^. Then ft∙f^ on P1∖{h:Hf(h)=0}.
Conversely, we have
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let {ft}⊂Ratd be a holomorphic family. Suppose that ft∙f^∈Rate on P1∖S, where S⊂P1 is finite. Then there exists a degree d−e homogeneous polynomial H such that ftsaHf^ with {h:H(h)=0}⊂S.
Proof.
Suppose that ftsag=Hgg^, as t→0. Then by Lemma 2.4, we have ft∙g^ on P1∖{h:Hg(h)=0}. Thus g^=f^ on P1∖({h:Hg(h)=0}∪S). So g^=f^ on P1. We get {h:Hg(h)=0}⊂S. Thus, g=Hgg^=Hgf^.
∎
Corollary 2.6**.**
Let {ft}⊂Ratd be a holomorphic family. Then ftaf if and only if ft⇉f.
We use the following example to illustrate the subalgebraical convergence.
Example 2.7**.**
Quadratic rational maps.
Here we consider the fixed-point normal form for quadratic rational maps [33, Appendix C].
[TABLE]
with μ1μ2=1. Then z=0 and z=∞ are fixed points of f(z) with multipliers μ1 and μ2, respectively. And the third fixed point is z=(1−μ1)/(1−μ2) with multiplier μ3=(2−μ1−μ2)/(1−μ1μ2).
In projective coordinates, we can write
[TABLE]
Then f=[1:μ1:0:0:μ2:1]∈P5. Consider the holomorphic family ft given by
[TABLE]
with μ1(t)μ2(t)→1. Then {ft} is degenerate. Suppose ftsag=Hgg^ as t→0. We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
2.3. (Degenerate) Newton Maps
In this subsection, we state some basic background of the (degenerate) Newton maps. For d≥2, let P(z) be a degree d monic polynomial. Let r={r1,⋯,rd} be the roots of P(z) counted with multiplicity. Then P(z) is uniquely determined by r. We may write Pr(z) instead of P(z) to emphasis its roots. In projective coordinates, we can write
[TABLE]
Then the derivative P′(z) of P(z) can be written as
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
We say Nr is a Newton map of degree d if Nr∈Ratd⊂P2d+1. In other word, Nr is a Newton map of degree d if and only if r1,⋯,rd are d distinct points in C. In this case, in affine coordinates, we can write Nr:C→C by
[TABLE]
and say Nr(z) is the Newton map of the polynomial Pr(z).
For a point N∈P2d+1∖Ratd, we say N is a degenerate Newton map of degree d if there exists a sequence {Nn} of Newton maps of degree d such that Nn converges to N in P2d+1, as n→∞. Let N be a degenerate Newton map of degree d. Then there exist an integer d≥m≥0 and a degree d−m polynomial P such that
[TABLE]
If m=0, then ∞ is a hole of N with depth d∞(N)=m. All other holes of N are the multiple roots ri of P and the corresponding depths dri(N) are mP(ri)−1, where mP(ri) is the multiplicity of ri as a zero of P. Note if m=0, then P is a degree d polynomial with multiple roots, and the formula (2.3) coincides to formula (2.1).
In general, let r be a set of d points (not necessary distinct) in C. Suppose there are m≥0 many ∞s in r. Let P be the polynomial of degree d−m whose roots coincide to the points in r that are not ∞. Then we define Nr to be the (degenerate) Newton map Nr by formula (2.3).
Example 2.8**.**
Let r={0,0,1,∞}. Then Nr has holes at [math] and ∞, and each hole has depth 1. More precisely,
[TABLE]
Note here we have Nr=N{0,0,1,∞}=N{0,0,1}.
For f∈Ratd, denote by Fix(f), Zero(f) and Crit(f) for the set of fixed points, the set of zeros and the set of critical points of f, respectively. Now we state some basic facts about the Newton map Nr(z).
Proposition 2.9**.**
For d≥2, let r={r1,⋯,rd} be a set of d distinct points in C, and let Nr be the Newton map of the polynomial Pr. Then
(1)
The set of fixed points of Nr is
[TABLE]
All ri’s are superattracting fixed points and z=∞ is the unique repelling fixed point. Moreover, the multiplier of Nr at z=∞ is d/(d−1).
2. (2)
The derivative of Nr is
[TABLE]
In particular, Crit(Nr)=Zero(Pr)∪Zero(Pr′′).
Remark 2.10**.**
If Nr is a degenerate Newton map, then we still have
[TABLE]
But ri may not be a superattracting fixed point. In fact, it is an attracting fixed point with multiplier (mPr(ri)−1)/d, where mPr(ri) is the multiplicity of ri as a zero of Pr. Moreover, the depth dri(Nr)=mPr(ri)−1.
For a Newton map Nr of degree d with r={r1,⋯,rd}, at each ri, there is a neighborhood Ui such that for each z∈Ui, Nrk(z)→ri as k→∞. The Bo¨ttcher’s theorem [34, Theorem 9.1] implies that this convergence is at least quadratic. We say a critical point c∈Crit(Nr) is free if c∈Zero(Pr′′)∖Zero(Pr). If Nr has an attracting cycle of period at least 2, then at least one free critical point is attracted to this cycle.
In the case d=2, we can conjugate N∈NM2 by some M∈PGL2(C) such that the two superattracting fixed points of M−1∘N∘M are [math] and ∞. This fact is known by Cayley, see [1] for more history. Thus, we have
Proposition 2.11**.**
Any quadratic Newton map Nr(z) is conjugate to z→z2.
2.4. The Space NMd
For d≥2, denote by NMd the set of degree d Newton maps. Then
[TABLE]
Let NMd⊂P2d+1 be the closure of NMd in P2d+1.
Let r={r1,⋯,rd}⊂C be a set of d distinct points. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where the σj’s are the elementary symmetric functions of ri’s.
In projective coordinates, we can express the Newton map Nr as following
[TABLE]
Remark 2.12**.**
(1)
The formula (2.4) of Nr([X:Y]) also works for the degenerate Newton map of degree d for which ∞ is not a hole.
2. (2)
In general, let r={r1,⋯,rd} be the set of d points (not necessary distinct) in C. Suppose there are d∞ many ris that are ∞. Then we can write Nr([X:Y])=Yd∞Nr~([X:Y]), where r~⊂r is the subset consisting of ri∈C. The formula 2.4 gives the projective coordinate of Nr~([X:Y]). Hence, we can get the projective coordinates of Nr.
Since a holomorphic family of rational maps is a family in which the coefficients may be expressed as holomorphic functions of the parameter t, the locations of the fixed points are thus algebraic functions of this parameter. It is well-known that algebraic functions of one complex variable t are given by Puiseux series in t, see [41]. Thus by a change in the parameterization of the form t=sk we may assume that the fixed points themselves are holomorphic functions of one parameter. In summary, when considering holomorphic families of Newton maps, it suffices for our purposes to consider holomorphic families where the roots ri(t) are holomorphic functions of t.
Now we state an easy lemma to show the subalgebraic limit of a holomorphic family {Nr(t)} of Newton maps.
Lemma 2.13**.**
Let {Nr(t)(z)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps with r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}. Suppose ri(t)→ri∈C as t→0, then in projective coordinates,
[TABLE]
where r={r1,⋯,rd}.
We use the following example to illustrate Lemma 2.13. And we draw the corresponding dynamics plane by the software “fractalstream”.
Example 2.14**.**
(1)
Let r(t)={0,1,i/t}. Consider the Newton map Nr(t). As t→0, we have
[TABLE]
2. (2)
Let r~(t)={0,1,ti}. Consider the Newton map Nr~(t). As t→0, we have
[TABLE]
Recall I(d)⊂P2d+1 is the indeterminacy locus. Then
Lemma 2.15**.**
Let {Nr(t)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps. Suppose Nr(t)saN=HNN as t→0. Then N∈I(d) if and only if ri(t)→∞ for all i=1,⋯,d.
Proof.
If ri(t)→∞ for i=1,⋯,d, then as t→0, we have σd(t)→∞ and for j=1,⋯,d−1,
Conversely, let E={i:ri(t)→∞}. By Lemma 2.13, #E≤1 since degN=0. If #E=1, suppose i∈E and ri(t)→a∈C, as t→0. Then f([X:Y])=Yd[a:1]. Thus, in this case N∈I(d). So #E=0, that is, all ri(t)→∞, as t→0.
∎
Corollary 2.16**.**
If N=HNN∈∂NMd with degN=0, then Hole(N)={∞}.
Corollary 2.17**.**
Let {Nr(t)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps with r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}. Suppose ri0(t)→∞ for some 1≤i0≤d as t→0, and suppose Nr(t)saN=HNN. Then for any q≥1, Nr(t)qsaNq and hence Nr(t)q∙Nq outside a finite set.
Proof.
From Lemma 2.15, we have f∈I(d). It follows the Lemmas 2.1 and 2.4.
∎
Lemma 2.15 implies immediately the following fundamental result.
Proposition 2.18**.**
For d≥2,
[TABLE]
3. Berkovich Dynamics
3.1. Berkovich Space and Related Dynamics
In this subsection, we summarize the definitions and main properties of Berkovich spaces and rational maps on Berkovich spaces used in this work. For more details, we refer [4, 6, 5, 22, 37, 38].
Let C{{t}} be the field of formal Puiseux series over C. Then C{{t}} can be equipped with a non-Archimedean absolute value ∣⋅∣C{{t}} by defining
[TABLE]
where n0 is the smallest integer n∈Z such that an=0. For more details of non-Archimedean fields, we refer [13]. Then the field C{{t}} is algebraically closed but not complete. Let L be the completion of the field C{{t}}, see [23, 24, 25]. It consists of all formal sums of the form ∑n≥0antqn, where {qn} is a sequence of rational numbers increasing to ∞ and an∈C. Let ∣⋅∣L be the extension of the non-Archimedean absolute value ∣⋅∣C{{t}} so that ∣a0tq0+⋯∣L=e−q0. To abuse of notations, we may write ∣⋅∣ for ∣⋅∣L. Then the ring of integers of the field L is
[TABLE]
and the unique maximal ideal ML of OL consists of series with zero constant term, i.e.
[TABLE]
The residue field OL/ML is canonically isomorphic to C.
Let ∣L×∣ be the value group of L. Given a∈L and r>0, define
[TABLE]
If r∈∣L×∣, we say that D(a,r) is an open rational disk in L and D(a,r) is a closed rational disk in L. If r∈∣L×∣, then D(a,r)=D(a,r). And we call it an irrational disk. Let U(a,r)⊂L be a disk centered at a∈L with radius r>0, that is, U has the form D(a,r) or D(a,r). Then if b∈U(a,r), we have U(a,r)=U(b,r). Moreover, the radius r is the same as the diameter of U(a,r), that is r=sup{∣z−w∣,w∈U(a,r)}. Furthermore, if two disks have a nonempty intersection, then one must contain the other. Finally, we should mention here every disk in L is both open and closed under the topology of L.
The Berkovich affine line ABer1(L) is the set of all multiplicative seminorms on the ring L[z] of polynomials over L, whose restriction to the field L⊂L[z] is equal to the given absolute value ∣⋅∣. To ease notation, we may write ABer1 for ABer1(L). For a∈L and r≥0, let ξa,r be the seminorm defined by
[TABLE]
for f∈L[z]. Then there are 4 types of points in ABer1:
Type I. ξa,0 for some a∈L.
Type II. ξa,r for some a∈L and r∈∣L×∣.
Type III. ξa,r for some a∈L and r∈/∣L×∣.
Type IV. A limit of seminorms {ξai,ri}i≥0, where the corresponding sequence of closed disks {Dai,ri}i≥0 satisfies Dai+1,ri+1⊂Dai,ri and i⋂Dai,ri=∅.
We can identify L with the type I points in ABer1 via a→ξa,0. The point ξ0,1∈ABer1 is called the Gauss point and denoted by ξg. We put the Gelfand topology (weak topology) on ABer1, which makes the map ABer1→[0,+∞), sending ξ to ∣f∣ξ, continuous for each f∈L[z]. Then ABer1 is locally compact, Hausdorff and uniquely path-connected.
For ξ,ξ′∈ABer1, we say ξ≤ξ′ if ∣f∣ξ≤∣f∣ξ′ for all polynomials f∈L[z]. For types I, II and III points, ξa1,r1≤ξa2,r2 if and only if D(a1,r1)⊂D(a2,r2). Then ≤ is a partial order on ABer1. Denote by ξ∨ξ′ the least upper bound with respect to the partial order ≤. Then ξ∨ξ′ always exists and is unique. The small metric on ABer1 is defined by
[TABLE]
where diam(ξ) is the affine diameter of the point ξ, that is, if {ξai,ri} is a sequence of seminorms converging to ξ, then diam(ξ)=i→∞limri. The topology on ABer1 induced by the metric d is called the strong topology. It is strictly finer than the weak topology. The Berkovich hyperbolic space is defined by
[TABLE]
Then we define the path distance metric ρ on HBer1 by
[TABLE]
The restriction of the strong topology to HBer1 coincides with the metric topology induced by ρ. The space HBer1 is complete for this metric, but not locally compact.
The Berkovich projective line PBer1 is obtained by gluing two copies of ABer1 along ABer1∖{0} via the map ξ→1/ξ. Then we can associate the Gelfand topology and strong topology on PBer1. Under the Gelfand topology, The Berkovich projective line PBer1 is a compact, Hausdorff, uniquely path-connected topological space and contains the projective line PL1 as a dense subset.
The space PBer1 has tree structure. For a point ξ∈PBer1, we can define an equivalence relation on PBer1∖{ξ}, that is, ξ′ is equivalent to ξ′′ if ξ′ and ξ′′ are in the same connected component of PBer1∖{ξ}. Such an equivalence class v is called a direction at ξ. We say that the set TξPBer1 formed by all directions at ξ is the tangent space at ξ. For v∈TξPBer1, denote by Bξ(v)− the component of PBer1∖{ξ} corresponding to the direction v. If ξ∈PBer1 is a type I or IV point, TξPBer1 consists of a single direction. If ξ∈PBer1 is a type III point, TξPBer1 consists of two directions. If ξ∈PBer1 is a type II point, the directions in TξPBer1 are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements in P1. Since the Gauss point ξg is a type II point, we can identify TξgPBer1 to P1 by the correspondence TξgPBer1→P1 sending vx to x, where vx is the direction at ξg such that Bξg(vx)− contains all the type I points whose images are x under the canonical reduction map PL1→P1.
The spherical metric on the projective PL1 is defined as follows: for points z=[x:y] and w=[u:v] in PL1,
[TABLE]
Equivalently,
[TABLE]
Recall a degree d≥1 rational map ϕ:PL1→PL1 is represented by a pair ϕa,ϕb∈L[X,Y] of degree d homogeneous polynomials with no common factors, that is, ϕ([X:Y])=[ϕa(X,Y):ϕb(X,Y)] for all [X:Y]∈PL1. Equivalently, the map ϕ can be considered as the quotient of two relatively prime polynomials, of which the greatest degree is d. Then ϕ induces a map from PBer1 to itself. We use the same notation ϕ for the induced map. For the Gauss point ξg∈PBer1, the corresponding closed disk D(0,1)⊂L is a disjoint union of open disks D(a,1) for a∈C. Note for all but finitely many such a, we have ϕ(D(a,1)) is an open disk D(ϕ(a),r) for some r∈∣L×∣. Then ϕ(ξg) is the point ξϕ(a),r∈PBer1 for any such choice of a. For an arbitrary type II point ξb,s, pick M∈PGL2(L) such that M(ξg)=ξb,r. Then apply the previous discussion to ϕ∘M and ϕ(ξb,s)=ϕ∘M(ξg). Since type II points are dense in PBer1, we can get the image ϕ(ξ) for any ξ∈PBer1.
For a holomorphic family
[TABLE]
of degree d rational maps, let ad,⋯,a0,bd,⋯,b0 be the power series expressions of the coefficients ad(t),⋯,a0(t),bd(t),⋯,b0(t), respectively. Then the degree d rational map f:PL1→PL1 given by
[TABLE]
is called, following Kiwi [25], the rational map associated to {ft}. Hence {ft} induces a map f:PBer1→PBer1.
Let P(z)∈OL[z] be a polynomial and let Red(P) be the image of P(z) in OL[z]/ML[z]. We say Red(P) is the reduction of P. For a rational map ϕ=P/Q∈L(z), where P,Q∈L[z] with no common zeros. We can normalize ϕ such that P,Q∈OL(z) and the maximal absolute value of coefficients of P and Q is 1. For a normalized rational map ϕ=P/Q∈L(z), the reduction Red(ϕ) is defined by
[TABLE]
In fact, if ϕ is induced from a holomorphic family, the reduction Red(ϕ) coincides with the limit of ϕ(z) as t→0. For convenience, for an arbitrary rational map ϕ∈L(z), we write Red(ϕ) for the reduction of the normalization of ϕ.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let ϕ(z),ψ(z)∈L(z) be two rational maps. Then
(1)
Red(ϕ⋅ψ)=Red(ϕ)⋅Red(ψ),
2. (2)
Red(ϕ+ψ)=Red(ϕ)+Red(ψ),
3. (3)
If degRed(ψ)≥1, then Red(ϕ∘ψ)=Red(ϕ)∘Red(ψ).
The following result, originally proved by Rivera-Letelier, gives a characteristic of rational maps with nonconstant reductions.
Proposition 3.2**.**
[4, Corollary 9.27]**
Let ϕ(z)∈L(z) be a normalized rational map. Then degRed(ϕ)≥1 if and only if ϕ(ξg)=ξg.
At each point ξ∈PBer1, denote by degξϕ the local degree of ϕ at ξ. Then
Lemma 3.3**.**
[4, Section 9.1]**
Let ϕ(z)∈L(z) be a nonconstant rational map. Let ξ∈PBer1 and v∈TξPBer1. Then there is a positive integer m and a point ξ′∈Bξ(v)− such that
(1)
degξ′′ϕ=m* for all ξ′′∈(ξ,ξ′), and*
2. (2)
ρ(ϕ(ξ),ϕ(ξ′′))=mρ(ξ,ξ′′)* for all ξ′′∈(ξ,ξ′).*
The integer m is called the directional multiplicity and denoted by mϕ(ξ,v).
Let ξ∈PBer1. For any v∈TξPBer1, there is a unique w∈Tϕ(ξ)PBer1 such that for any ξ′ sufficiently near ξ, ϕ(ξ′)∈Bϕ(ξ)(w)−. Thus the rational map ϕ induces a map
[TABLE]
sending the direction v to the corresponding direction w.
The following lemma gives the relations between local degrees and directional multiplicities.
Lemma 3.4**.**
[4, Theorem 9.22]**
Let ϕ∈L(z) be a nonconstant rational map. Let ξ∈PBer1. Then
(1)
for each tangent w∈Tϕ(ξ)PBer1, we have
[TABLE]
2. (2)
the induced map ϕ∗:TξPBer1→Tϕ(ξ)PBer1 is surjective. If ξ is of type I, III, or IV, then degξϕ=mϕ(ξ,v) for each v∈TξPBer1.
The following result allows us to compute the local degree of ϕ at a type II point.
Proposition 3.5**.**
[36, Proposition 3.3]**
Let ϕ∈L(z) be a nonconstant rational function, and let ξ∈PBer1 be a type II point. Set ξ′=ϕ(ξ) and choose M1,M2∈PGL2(L) such that M1(ξg)=ξ and M2(ξg)=ξ′. Let ψ=M2−1∘ϕ∘M1. Then
degRed(ψ)≥1 and
[TABLE]
For each a∈P1, if va∈TξPBer1 is the associated tangent direction under the bijection between TξPBer1 and P1 afforded by (M1−1)∗, we have
[TABLE]
Now let’s state a fundamental fact in Berkovich dynamics.
Proposition 3.6**.**
[36, Lemma 2.1]** Let ϕ:PBer1→PBer1 be a rational map of degree at least 1. For ξ∈PBer1 and v∈TξPBer1, the image ϕ(Bξ(v)−) always contains Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))−, and either ϕ(Bξ(v)−)=Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))− or ϕ(Bξ(v)−)=PBer1. Moreover
(1)
if ϕ(Bξ(v)−)=Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))−, then each ξ′∈Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))− has mϕ(ξ,v) preimages in Bξ(v)−, counting multiplicities;
2. (2)
if ϕ(Bξ(v)−)=PBer1, there is an integer sϕ(ξ,v)>0 such that each ξ′∈Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))− has mϕ(ξ,v)+sϕ(ξ,v) preimages in Bξ(v)− and each ξ′′∈PBer1∖Bϕ(ξ)(ϕ∗(v))− has s preimages in Bξ(v)−, counting multiplicities.
Following Faber [15], the integer sϕ(ξ,v) is called the surplus multiplicity.
The following lemma gives us a criterion for which Berkovich disk Bξ(v)− is mapped to another Berkovich disk.
Lemma 3.7**.**
[4, Theorem 9.42]**
Let ϕ∈L(z) be a nonconstant rational map. Then ϕ(Bξ(v)−) is a Berkovich disk if and only if for each c∈Bξ(v)−, the local degree of ϕ is nonincreasing on the directed segment [ξ,c].
3.2. Berkovich Dynamics of Newton maps
Fix d≥3. Let
[TABLE]
be a set of d distinct points. Set Pr(z)=∏i=1d(z−ri)∈L[z]. Same as complex case, the Newton map Nr:PL1→PL1 of the polynomial Pr is defined by
[TABLE]
The map Nr extends to a map Nr:PBer1→PBer1. To ease notation, we write N for Nr. In this subsection, we state some fundamental properties of N in the Berkovich space PBer1. These properties shed light on the case when we consider holomorphic families of Newton maps. Indeed, if {Nr(t)} is a holomorphic family of degree d Newton maps with r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}, by regarding each ri(t) as an element in L, the associated map for {Nr(t)} is a Newton map in L(z).
Since L is a complete and algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, the map N has 2d−2 critical points, counted with multiplicity, in PL1. Thus the collections Crit(N)∪{∞} is a finite collection of elements in PL1, which sits in the Berkovich space PBer1. Let Hbig be convex hull of Crit(N)∪{∞}. As a topological space, Hbig is homeomorphic to the underlying space of a finite tree. We may equip this undelying space with a natural graph-theoretic combinatorial structure so that we may speak of vertices and edges. Consider the branch points as the vertices of Hbig. Then Hbig is a finite tree and it plays a central role in our study. Since it is the biggest of several trees we will consider, we indicate this by the subscript.
In general, the vertices of Hbig come in two flavors: (1) those in the hyperbolic space HBer, which are called the internal vertices of the tree, and (2) those in PL1, i.e. the critical points and the point ∞, which are called the leaves of the tree. Note the fixed points of Nr in PL1 are ris and ∞. Then the convex hull Hfix of {r1,⋯,rd,∞} sits in Hbig. As for Hbig, we can consider vertices, internal vertices and leaves for Hfix. Then a vertex of Hfix is a vertex of Hbig. Hence Hfix is a subtree of Hbig. Let V be the set of internal vertices of Hfix. We have
[TABLE]
where ValE(ξ) is the valance of ξ∈E in a connected subset E⊂PBer1, that is, the number of components of E∖{ξ}. Thus each element in V is an internal vertex of Hbig. The convex hull HV spanned by V is a subset of HBer. It also play a key role. The path distance metric on HBer gives HV a natural metric structure that we study in section 5. Moreover, as we will discuss in [35], the combinatorial tree HV encodes the stratum in the Deligne-Mumford compactification of the moduli space M0,d+1 of Riemann surfaces of genus [math] with d+1 marked points to which the configuration {r1,⋯,rd,∞} converges.
To make it clear, we list the subtrees we will study.
[TABLE]
where V:={ξ∈Hfix:ValHfix(ξ)≥3}.
To illustrate the these subtrees, we first define visible point, which was introduced by Faber [16]
Definition 3.8**.**
For a connected subset E⊂PBer1 and a point ξ∈PBer1, we say a point ξ′ is the visible point from ξ to E if ξ′ is the unique point of closure E of E (in strong topology) minimize the small metric from ξ to E. Denote by πE(ξ) the visible point from ξ to E.
Note if ξ∈E, we have πE(ξ)=ξ. If ξ∈E, then πE(ξ) is the unique point on E disconnecting E from ξ.
Now we illustrate the several subtrees in PBer1. As an motivating example, we consider
Example 3.9**.**
Let r1=0,r2=t,r3=2t,r4=1,r5=1+t and r6=2 be six points in L. Set r={r1,r2,r3,r4,r5,r6} and consider the map Nr. Then Nr has four free critical points c1,c2,c3 and c4. Figure 3 shows the convex hull Hbig for Nr. The hull Hbig has internal vertices v1,v2,v3∈HBer and leaves r1,⋯,r6,c1,⋯,c4,∞∈PL1. Let V={v1,v2,v3} and HV=Hull(V). At v1, the reduction of Nr has degree 3. Hence there are 4 critical points of Nr whose visible points to HV are v1. At v2, the map (Nr)∗ has 1 superattracting fixed point and 2 attracting fixed points. Thus there are at least two directions whose corresponding Berkovich disks containing free critical points, say c2,c4, attracted to these two attracting fixed points. At v3, the reduction of Nr has degree 2.
For now, we focus on combinatorial aspects. The following theorem summarizes the properties of these subtrees. The proof depends on a sequence of lemmas established later in this subsection.
Theorem 3.10**.**
For a Netwon map N(z)∈L(z) of degree d≥3, consider the subtrees defined as above. Then we have
(1)
The set V is a singleton if and only if the map N has a potentially good reduction.
2. (2)
Let FixBer(N) be the set of fixed points of N in PBer1. Then
[TABLE]
3. (3)
The visible points from elements in Crit(N) to HV∞ lie in V. Moreover, for each v∈V, there are 2degvN−2 points, counted with multiplicity, in Crit(N) whose visible points to HV∞ are v.
4. (4)
For each v∈V, the visible points from the preimages N−1(v) to Hfix lie in V.
5. (5)
The set Hfix is forward invariant and contains HV∞. Moreover, edges of Hfix maps to themselves. In particular, each point in Hr∖HV is attracted to some ri.
6. (6)
*The Berkovich ramification locus RN of N consists of the union of closed segments *[v,a]s, where a∈Crit(N) and v is the visible point from a to HV.
Remark 3.11**.**
In Theorem 3.10, the assumption d≥3 is necessary. Indeed, if d=2, then Hr=Hcrit and V is always a singleton. Hence HV∞ is a segment and the ramification locus is connected which is Hr. But Theorem 3.10(2)−(5) are still true for d=2.
If V={ξ} is a singleton, then ValHfix(ξ)=d. Hence degξN=d. Let M∈PGL2(L) such that M(ξg)=ξ. Then degξgM−1∘N∘M=d. By Proposition 3.5, we have degRed(M−1∘N∘M)=d. Hence N has a potentially good reduction. Conversely, if N has a potentially good reduction, then there exits M∈PGL2(L) such that degRed(M−1∘N∘M)=d. So degξgM−1∘N∘M=d. Letting ξ=M(ξg), we have degξN=d. Hence V={ξ} is a singleton. This gives the proof of Theorem 3.10(1).
Lemma 3.12**.**
πHr(∞)=πHV(∞).
Proof.
Note
[TABLE]
Then ValHfix(πHr(∞))≥3. Thus πHr(∞)∈V. Hence πHr(∞)∈HV. Since HV⊂Hr, we have
[TABLE]
The conclusion follows from the uniqueness of the visible point.
∎
For a rational map ϕ∈L(z) and a type II point ξ∈PBer1(L), Proposition 3.2 claims that ϕ(ξ)=ξ if and only if the reduction Red(ψ) is nonconstant, where ψ=M−1∘ϕ∘M and M∈PGL2(L) such that M(ξg)=ξ. A fixed point ξ∈FixBer(ϕ) is repelling if degξϕ≥2. For the map N, the points r1,⋯,rd and ∞ are the only fixed points of type I. Now we show
Lemma 3.13**.**
For the map N,
[TABLE]
In particular, the set of repelling fixed points of N in HBer is V.
Proof.
If ξ∈HV∞ is a type II point, let M∈PGL2(L) such that M(ξg)=ξ. Then the reduction of M−1∘N∘M is nonconstant. Indeed, M−1∘N∘M∈L(z) is a Newton map for a polynomial in L[z] with multiple roots. If ξ∈HV∞ is not a type II point, there exists a sequence {ξn}⊂HV∞ of type II points such that d(ξn,ξ)→0 as n→∞. Note N is continuous. Then
[TABLE]
Thus ξ∈FixBer(N).
If ξ∈HV∞ is a type II point, let M1∈PGL2(L) such that M1(ξg)=ξ. Then there exist at least d−1 many ri’s such that Red(M1−1(ri))=∞. Thus, the reduction of M1−1∘N∘M1 is constant. So ξ∈FixBer(N). For any type III or IV point ξ∈HV∞, the visible point η:=πHfix(ξ) is a type II point. Let v∈TηPBer1 be such that ξ∈Bη(v)−. By Lemma 3.7, we know N(Bη(v)−) is a Berkovich disk. Since v is not a fixed point of the map N∗,
[TABLE]
So ξ∈FixBer(N). Therefore, FixBer(N)∩HBer⊂HV∞.
Now we show that the set V consisting of repelling fixed points in HL. Let ξ∈FixBer(N) be a type II point. Let M2∈PGL2(L) such that M2(ξg)=ξ. If ξ∈V, then Red(M2−1(ri)) is either ∞ or some constant c∈C. Thus, the reduction M2−1∘N∘M2 has degree 1. Then by Proposition 3.5, degξN=1. So ξ is not a repelling fixed point. If ξ∈V, then there exist two distinct constants c1 and c2 in C, and exist ri and rj with i=j such that Red(M2−1(ri))=c1 and Red(M2−1(rj))=c2. Thus, the reduction M2−1∘N∘M2 has degree at least 2. Again, by Proposition 3.5, we have degξN≥2. Thus ξ is a repelling fixed point.
∎
Corollary 3.14**.**
V={ξ∈HV∞:degξN≥3}.
Proof.
First note at ∞, the local degree deg∞N=1. By the definition of HV and Lemma 3.13, we know
[TABLE]
For the other direction, let ξ∈HV∞∖V. By Lemma 3.13, we have ξ∈FixBer(N). Suppose ξ is of type II. Let M∈PGL2(L) be such that M(ξg)=ξ. Then M−1∘N∘M has reduction of degree at most 1. By Proposition 3.5, we have degξN≤1. By the density of type II points and Lemma 3.3, we know {ξ∈HV∞:degξN≥3}⊂V.
∎
Recall that a point c∈L is a free critical point of N if c∈Crit(N)∖{r1,⋯,rd}. The following lemma gives the visible points of critical points to the tree HV∞ and hence implies Theorem 3.10(3).
Lemma 3.15**.**
If c∈Crit(N) is a free critical point, then πHV∞(c)∈V. Moreover, for v∈V,
[TABLE]
counted with multiplicity.
Proof.
To ease the notations, let ξ=πHV∞(c). Then ξ∈PBer1 is a type II point. Let v∈TξPBer1 be the tangent vector such that c∈Bξ(v)−. Then the directional multiplicity mN(ξ,v)≥2 since c is a critical point of N. Thus by Lemma 3.4, we have
For v∈V, by the definition of V and Lemma 3.13, we know v is a type II fixed point of N. Let M∈PGL2(L) such that M(ξg)=v. Then the reduction Red(M−1∘N∘M) has 2degvN−2 critical points. Note
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus we obtain the conclusion.
∎
Now we prove a weak version of Theorem 3.10(4) which allows us to characteristic the fixed Berkovich Fatou components of N and hence prove Theorem 3.10(5). After that, we prove Theorem 3.10(4).
Lemma 3.16**.**
For v∈V, let ξ∈N−1(v). Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, for v1=v2∈V,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose η:=πHV(ξ)∈HV∖V. By Lemma 3.13 and Corollary 3.14, we have η∈FixBer(N) and degηN=1. Let v∈TηPBer1 be the tangent vector such that ξ∈Bη(v)−. Since N∗(v)=w, where w∈TηPBer1 such that Bη(w)−∩V=∅, then
[TABLE]
Hence N(ξ)∈V. It is a contradiction. Thus η∈V.
At the point v2, let v1∈Tv2PBer1 such that v1∈Bv2(v1)−. Then v1 is a fixed point of N∗ with degv1N∗=1. Thus, we have
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 3.17**.**
For v∈V, if ξ∈N−1(v) such that πHV(ξ)=v, then ξ=v. In particular, for any v∈TvPBer1 with Bv(v)−∩V=∅,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let V={v1,⋯,vn}. Note
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Note vi has d preimages. Thus, if πHV(ξi)=vi for some ξi∈N−1(vi), then ξi=vi.
As a consequence, for v∈V and v∈TvPBer1 with Bv(v)−∩V=∅, we have v∈N(Bξ(v)−). Hence N(Bv(v)−)=PBer1.
∎
Recall that for a rational map ϕ∈L(z), the Berkovich Julia set JBer(ϕ) consists of the points ξ∈PBer1 such that for all (weak) neighborhood U of ξ, the set ∪n=1∞ϕn(U) omits at most two points in PBer1. The complement of the Berkovich Julia set is the Berkovich Fatou set FBer(ϕ), see [4, Section 10.5] and [5, Section 7]. If U is a periodic connected component of FBer(ϕ), then U is either a Rivera domain, mapping bijectively onto itself, or an attracting component, mapping multiple to one onto itself [4, Theorem 10.76]. A periodic type II point ξ∈PBer1 of period q is repelling if degξϕq≥2. Repelling periodic points are contained in the Julia set JBer(ϕ) [24, Theorem 2.1]. Moreover, all the repelling periodic points in HL are of type II [4, Lemma 10.80]. We say a subset A of PBer1 is an annulus if A is an intersection of two disks B,B′ with distinct boundary points such that B∪B′=PBer1. For a Newton map N∈L(z), by Lemma 3.13 and Corollary 3.14, we know V⊂JBer(N). Moreover, each component of PBer1∖V is either an annulus or a ball. Indeed, if U is a component of PBer1∖V with at least 3 boundary points, then there exists v∈V such that v∈U. It is a contradiction. In contrast to complex dynamics, the point ∞ is an indifferent fixed point of N. Hence, ∞∈FBer(N).
Lemma 3.18**.**
Let U be a component of FBer(N) fixed by N.
(1)
U* is a fixed Rivera domain if and only if U is a component of PBer1∖V which is either an annulus or a disk containing ∞.*
2. (2)
U* is a fixed attracting domain if and only if U is a component of PBer1∖V which contains some ri.*
Proof.
First note if U is a component of PBer1∖V, then U is fixed by N if and only if either the boundary of U has more than one point, U contains some ri or U contains ∞. Indeed, if U is a component of PBer1∖V which has only one boundary point, say ξ, and does not contain either ri or ∞. Then ξ∈V. Let v∈TξPBer1 such that U=Bξ(v)−. Then N∗ does not fix v. Thus U is not fixed by N. By Corollary 3.17, we know the component U containing some ri is fixed, since N fixes the boundary point of U and ri. Similarly, the component U containing ∞ is a fixed component. If U is a component with at least 2 boundary points, then by Lemma 3.13 and noting degN∗=1 at any point on HV∖V, we have U is a fixed component.
Since each ri is a (super)attracting fixed point of N and N has no other attracting fixed points, we get the classifications of fixed Rivera domains and attracting domains for N.
∎
Note each ri is a superattracting fixed point and vi:=πHV(ri)∈V is a repelling fixed point of N. The following lemma states that the segment [vi,ri] is invariant under N and in the path distance metric ρ, the map N pushes points in (vi,ri) away from vi to ri. It deduces Theorem 3.10(5) immediately since by Lemma 3.13, we have HV∞ is fixed by N and Hfix∖HV∞=Hr∖HV. Later, we will show N expands uniformly on [vi,ri).
Lemma 3.19**.**
Any component L of Hr∖HV is invariant by N. Moreover, for any ξ∈L∩HBer, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose there exist a component L of Hr∖HV and a point ξ∈L such that N(ξ)∈L. We assume ri∈L. Set v=πHV(ξ) . Let v1∈TvPBer1 and v2∈TξPBer1 be such that ri∈Bξ(v1)−⊂Bv(v2)−. Let ξ′=N(ξ) and w=N∗(v)∈Tξ′PBer1. By Corollary 3.17,
[TABLE]
Note N(ri)=ri. Thus [ri,v]⊂Bξ′(w)−. Thus N−1(v)∩Bv(v2)−=∅. It contradicts with Corollary 3.17. Thus N(L)⊂L. Note N fixes the endpoints of L. Thus N(L)=L.
By Lemma 3.18, the disk Bv(v2)− is an attracting Fatou component. Thus
By Lemma 3.16, it is sufficient to show πHfix(ξ)∈Hfix∖HV. Suppose that η:=πHfix(ξ)∈Hfix∖HV. By Corollary 3.17, the Berkovich disk with boundary η containing ξ maps to a Berkovich disk B with boundary N(η) and πHV(η)∈B. By Lemma 3.19, we know
[TABLE]
Thus B∩V=∅. It is a contradiction.
∎
For a rational map ϕ∈L(z), the Berkovich ramification locus Rϕ is defined by
[TABLE]
The Berkovich ramification locus Rϕ is a closed subset of PBer1 with no isolated point and has at most d−1 components [15, Theorem A]. Moreover, Rϕ is contained in the convex hull of critical points of ϕ [15, Corollary 7.13]. Then for Newton map N, we have RN⊂Hcrit. The following lemma gives the precise locations of the Berkovich ramification locus RN and deducts Theorem 3.10(6).
Lemma 3.21**.**
For the map N, the Berkovich ramification locus is
[TABLE]
Proof.
For any point ξ∈HV∖V, by Corollary 3.14, degξN<2. Thus ξ∈RN. Hence, RN⊂(Hcrit∖HV)∪V.
Conversely, by Corollary 3.14, V⊂RN. Now pick ξ∈Hcrit∖HV. By Corollary 3.17, there exists a tangent vector v∈TξPBer1 such that Bξ(v)−∩Crit(N)=∅ and N(Bξ(v)−)=PBer1. Thus, the directional multiplicity mN(ξ,v)≥2. By Lemma 3.4,
[TABLE]
Thus, ξ∈RN.
∎
To end this section, we show the map N expands uniformly on each segment [vi,ri), where vi=πHV(ri).
Lemma 3.22**.**
Let vi=πHV(ri). Then for any ξ1,ξ2∈[vi,ri), then
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 3.21, for each point ξ∈[vi,ri], we have degξN≥2. In fact, the directional multiplicity mN(ξ,v)≥2, where v∈TξPBer1 is such that ri∈Bξ(v)−. Then the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.3.
∎
4. Measure Theory
4.1. Limiting Measures on P1
In this subsection, we associate each point f∈P2d+1 a natural measure μf.
For f∈Ratd, let μf be the unique measure of maximal entropy, which is given by the weak limit
[TABLE]
for any nonexceptional point a∈P1,see [18, 26, 29]. The measure μf has no atoms, and suppμf=J(f). Moreover, μfn=μf.
For f=Hff^ with degf^≥1, following DeMarco [9], define
[TABLE]
where the holes h and all preimages by f^ are counted with multiplicity. Then μf is an atomic probability measure. If degf^=0, define
[TABLE]
where the holes h are counted with multiplicity. Recall the indeterminacy locus I(d)⊂P2d+1 is defined by
[TABLE]
Then if f∈I(d), we have μf=μfn. We refer [9, 10] for more properties of the measure μf when f is degenerate.
Example 4.1**.**
Consider the degenerate cubic Newton map N{0,0,1}∈P7. To ease the notation, we write N=N{0,0,1}. Since z=0 is the unique hole of N, then by definition, we know
[TABLE]
In particular, μN({0})=21.
Recall that dh(f) is the depth of hole h∈P1 for the map f.
Proposition 4.2**.**
[9, Theorem 0.1, Theorem 0.2]**
Suppose d≥2 and f∈P2d+1. Then f∈I(d) if and only if the map g→μg is discontinuous at f. Moreover, Suppose {fk} is a sequence in Ratd converging to f=Hff^∈Ratd.
(1)
If f∈I(d), μfk→μf weakly.
2. (2)
If f∈I(d), let f^≡c. Then any subsequential limit μ of μfk satisfies
[TABLE]
If f=Hff^=Hfc∈I(d) and dc(f)=1, under the assumptions in Proposition 4.2, the lower bound dc(f)/(d+dc(f)) is sharp [9, Example 5.1]. Furthermore, DeMarco and Faber proved every weak limit of measures of maximal entropy for degenerating sequences is purely atomic [11, Theorem A].
4.2. Limiting Measures for Holomorphic Families
In this subsection, we provide some basic facts about the measurable dynamics on Berkovich space PBer1 and state DeMarco and Faber’s results about the limiting measures for holomorphic families, see [11, 12] , which connect measurable dynamics on the Riemann sphere with measurable dynamics on Berkovich space. For more measurable dynamics on PBer1, we refer [4].
Let ϕ:PBer1→PBer1 be a rational map of degree d≥2. Let μϕ be the equilibrium measure on PBer1 relative to ϕ. The measure μϕ is also known as the canonical measure, see [4], which is the unique Borel probability measure μ that satisfies ϕ∗μ=dμ and that does not charge any type I point in PBer1
[17, Theorem A]. In fact, for any nonexceptional point ξ∈PBer1, the measure μϕ is the weak limit
[TABLE]
where the sum is counted with multiplicity [17, Theorem A].
Following DeMarco and Faber[12], we say Γ⊂PBer1 is a vertex set if Γ is a finite nonempty set of type II points. The connected components of PBer1∖Γ is called the Γ-domains. Denote by P(Γ) be the partition of PBer1 consisting of the elements of Γ and all the corresponding Γ-domains. Then the equilibrium Γ-measure ωϕ,Γ is defined by ωϕ,Γ(U):=μϕ(U) for each U∈P(Γ). Then the measure ωϕ,Γ supports on a countable subset of P(Γ) and has total mass 1. Indeed, the support of μϕ is the Berkovich Julia set JBer(ϕ) [4, Section 10.5] and there are countably many elements in P(Γ) intersect JBer(ϕ) [12, Lemma 2.4, Proposition 2.5].
Since the tangent space TξgPBer1 can be canonically identified with P1, in the case Γ={ξg}, the equilibrium Γ-measure ωϕ,Γ gives us a natural Borel measure on P1. Indeed, the branches of Berkovich space attached to the Gauss point correspond to points in its tangent space, which is identified with P1 via reduction, so a measure on branches induces a measure on P1. This measure on P1 is called the residual equilibrium measure.
For a holomorphic family {ft}, the maximal measures μft converge weakly to the residual equilibrium measure for the induced map f on PBer1.
Proposition 4.3**.**
[11, Theorem B]**
Suppose that d≥2. Let {ft} be a degenerate holomorphic family in Ratd. Then μft converges weakly to a limiting probability measure μ as t→0. Moreover, the measure μ is equal to the residual equilibrium measure for the induced rational map f:PBer1→PBer1.
To compute the limit measure μ in Proposition 4.3, DeMarco and Faber studied the pairs (ϕ,Γ) consisting of a degree d≥2 rational map ϕ:PBer1→PBer1 and a vertex set Γ in PBer1. A Γ-domain U is called a F-domain if ϕn(U)∩Γ=∅ for all n≥1. Otherwise, we say U is a J-domain. Denote by J(Γ)⊂P(Γ) the subset consisting of all J-domains and elements of Γ. For a given vertex set Γ, the set J(Γ) is countable [12, Lemma 2.4] and the union of sets in J(Γ) contains the Julia set JBer(f) [12, Proposition 2.5]. We say the pair (ϕ,Γ) is analytically stable if for each ξ∈Γ, either ϕ(ξ)∈Γ or ϕ(ξ)∈U for some F-domain U. If (ϕ,Γ) is analytically stable, then ϕ maps a F-domain into another F-domain [12, Lemma 2.7]. Moreover,
for U,V∈J(Γ) and y∈U, the quantity
[TABLE]
is independent of the choice of y [12, Lemma 2.8].
Proposition 4.4**.**
[12, Theorem C]**
Let ϕ:PBer1→PBer1 be a degree d≥2 rational map and let Γ⊂PBer1 be a vertex set. Let μϕ be the equilibrium measure for ϕ. Suppose that (ϕ,Γ) is analytically stable and JBer(ϕ) is not contained in Γ. Let P be the ∣J(Γ)∣×∣J(Γ)∣ matrix defined by the (U,V)-entry
[TABLE]
Then P is the transition matrix for a countable state Markov chain with a unique stationary probability vector ν:J(Γ)→[0,1]. The rows of Pn converge pointwise to ν and the U-entry of ν satisfies ν(U)=μϕ(U) for each U∈J(Γ).
For a degenerate holomorphic family {ft} in Ratd, consider the associated map f:PBer1→PBer1. If the pair (f,{ξg}) is analytically stable, then each J-domain is a disk with boundary ξg. By Proposition 4.4, we can compute the measure for each J-domain. Hence, we can get the direction v∈TξgPBer1 with μf(Bξg(v)−)>0. Then by Proposition 4.3, we can get the weak limit μ of measures μft. However, in general, the pair (f,{ξg}) is not analytically stable. In fact, (f,{ξg}) is analytically stable if and only if f0∈I(d) [12, Proposition 5.1]. DeMarco and Faber proved for any vertex set Γ⊂PBer1, there exists a vertex set Γ′ containing Γ such that (f,Γ′) is analytically stable [12, Theorem D].
4.3. Limiting Measures for Newton Maps
By Proposition 2.18, there is a unique point in the intersection of the closure of Newton maps and the indeterminacy locus I(d). In this subsection, we let {Nr(t)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps such that Nr(t) converges to the point in I(d), as t→0. Write r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}. Then by Lemma 2.15, we have as t→0, ri(t)→∞ for i=1,⋯,d. To ease notations, we write Nt for the Newton map Nr(t) and write μt for the maximal measure for Nt. We study the weak limit of measures μt and prove Theorem 1.1.
Let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nt}. Then N(ξg)∈Bξg(v∞)−, where v∞∈TξgPBer1 such that ∞∈Bξg(v∞)−. Indeed, it follows immediately from the following fact.
Lemma 4.5**.**
Let {ft}⊂Ratd be a holomorphic family such that, in projective coordinates ft([X:Y]) converges to H(X,Y)c, where c∈P1 and H(X,Y) is a homogeneous polynomial. Let f:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {ft}. Then f(ξg)∈Bξg(vc)−, where vc∈TξgPBer1 such that c∈Bξg(vc)−.
Now, combining with the Berkovich dynamics for Newton maps in section 3, we can figure out the weak limit of measures μt. The discussion contains several cases according to the orbit of ξg under N.
Recall V⊂PBer1 is the set of type II repelling fixed points of N and recall HV∞ is the convex hull of V and {∞}.
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let v∞∈TξgPBer1 such that ∞∈Bξg(v∞)−. Suppose that PBer1∖{Bξg(v∞)−∪{ξg}} is contained in the Berkovich Fatou set FBer(N). Then the measures μt converge to δ∞.
Proof.
Since PBer1∖{Bξg(v∞)−∪{ξg}}⊂FBer(N), then the equilibrium measure μN does not charge PBer1∖{Bξg(v∞)−∪{ξg}}. Since the Berkovich Julia set JBer(N) is not an isolated point, then the measure μN does not charge PBer1∖Bξg(v∞)−. Thus μN(Bξg(v∞)−)=1. By Proposition 4.3, the measures μt converge to δ∞.
∎
Corollary 4.7**.**
Suppose Nk(ξg)∈HV∞ for all k≥0 and assume there exists k0≥0 such that the visible point πHV(Nk0(ξg))∈V. Then the measures μt converge to δ∞.
Proof.
To ease notations, set ξk=Nk(ξg). Let v∞k∈TξkPBer1 such that ∞∈Bξk(v∞k)−. Since ξk∈HV∞, then HV∞⊂Bξk(v∞k)−. Without loss of generality, we can assume k0 is the smallest nonnegative integer such that πHV(Nk0(ξg))∈V. Then by Lemma 3.18, the set PBer1∖Bξk0(v∞k0)− is contained in a fixed Revera domain of the Berkovich Fatou set FBer(N). We claim for any v∈TξgPBer1 with v=v∞0, the set Nk0(Bξg(v)−) is a disk contained in PBer1∖Bξk0(v∞k0)−. If k0=0, the claim holds trivially. If k0≥1, by Corollary 3.17, we know N(Bξg(v)−) is a Berkovich disk Bξ1(w)− for some w∈Tξ1PBer1, and there is no preimage of πHV(ξg)∈V in the Berkovich disk Bξg(v)−. Then we have w=v∞1. Applying the same argument to ξi for 1≤i≤k0−1, we have Nk0(Bξg(v)−)⊂PBer1∖Bξk0(v∞k0)−. Thus, Bξg(v)−⊂FBer(N) for any v∈TξgPBer1 with v=v∞0. By Proposition 4.6, the measures μt converge to δ∞.
∎
Denote by HVξg the convex hull of V∪{ξg}.
Theorem 4.8**.**
Suppose that Nn(ξg)∈HVξg for any n≥1. Then the measures μt converge to δ∞.
Proof.
Let η:=πHV(∞) and set ξk=Nk(ξg) for k≥0. First we further assume ξk∈(η,∞) for all k≥0. Then HV, ∞ and ξg lie in the same component of PBer1∖{ξk} for any k≥0. Denote these directions by v∞k∈TξkPBer1. By Corollary 4.7, we may assume πHV(ξk)∈V for all k≥0. Set Γ={ξg}. We claim for any v∈TξgPBer1 with v=v∞0, the disk Bξg(v)− is a F-domain. By Corollary 3.17, we know N(Bξg(v)−) is a Berkovich disk Bξ1(w)− for some w∈Tξ1PBer1. Again, by Corollary 3.17, there is no preimage of πHV(ξg)∈V in the Berkovich disk Bξg(v)−. By the assumptions, we have w=v∞1. Hence Bξ1(w)−∩Γ=∅. Then apply the argument to Bξ1(w)−. Inductively, we can show Nn(Bξg(v)−)∩Γ=∅ for all n≥1. Thus Bξg(v)− is a F-domain. Hence the equilibrium Γ-measure ωN,Γ does not charge Bξg(v)−. Therefore,
Now we assume there exists n0≥1 such that ξn0∈(η,∞). Without loss of generality, let n0 be the smallest such positive integer. Set
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.13, the point ξn0 is a fixed point for N and each point in V is also a fixed point for N. Hence N(Γ)⊂Γ. So the pair (N,Γ) is analytically stable. For any v∈TξgPBer1 with v=v∞. We claim Bξg(v)− is a F-domain. By Corollary 3.17, we know Nk(Bξg(v)−) does not contains πHV(Nk−1(ξg)) for 1≤k≤n0. Thus
[TABLE]
where w∈Tξn0PBer1 such that Bξn0(w)−∩V=∅. Hence
[TABLE]
Since degN∗=1 at ξn0 and w is totally invariant under N∗, then for any ℓ≥1, we have
[TABLE]
Hence Bξg(v)− is a F-domain. So the equilibrium Γ does not charge Bξg(v)−. Therefore, by Proposition 4.3, we know the weak limit of μt is δ∞.
∎
Corollary 4.9**.**
Suppose the Gauss point ξg is a periodic point for the map N. Then the measures μt converge to δ∞.
Proof.
By Theorem 4.8, it is sufficient to check Nn(ξg)∈HVξg for any n≥1. Suppose there exits n0≥1 such that Nn0(ξg)∈HVξg. Without loss of generality, we assume n0 is the smallest such integer. Let ξ=πHV(ξg) be the visible point from ξg to HV. Then
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.13, the convex hull HV is fixed by N pointwisely. Thus Nn0(ξg)∈(ξg,ξ). Otherwise, ξg is not a periodic point. Let v∈TξPBer1 such that ξg∈Bξ(v)−.
If ξ∈V, then at ξ, degN∗=1, Note v is not a fixed point of N∗. Thus ξg can not be periodic. Hence ξ∈V. Thus Nk(ξg)=ξg if n0∤k. If n0∣k, we have Nk(ξg)∈/Bξn0(v)−, where v∈Tξn0PBer1 such that ξg∈Bξn0(v)−. Hence ξg can not be periodic. It is a contradiction. Thus Nn(ξg)∈HVξg for any n≥1.
∎
The following example show the assumption Nn(ξg)∈HVξg for all n≥1 in Theorem 4.8 is necessary.
Example 4.10**.**
Let r(t)={1/t,−1/t,1/t3}. Consider the cubic Newton map Nrt(z). Note the symmetric functions are
[TABLE]
We can write
[TABLE]
Then the associated map N maps Gauss point ξg to ξ0,∣t−2∣. Note V={ξ0,∣t−1∣,ξ0,∣t−3∣}. Hence
[TABLE]
Now we compute the weak limit μ of the maximal measures μNt by Propositions 4.3 and 4.4. Set Γ={ξg,ξ0,∣t−2∣}. As N(ξ0,∣t−2∣)=ξ0,∣t−2∣, the pair (N,Γ) is analytically stable. Let V1 be the component of PBer1∖Γ with boundary ξ0,∣t−2∣ and containing ∞. Let V2 be the component of PBer1∖Γ with boundary ξg and ξ0,∣t−2∣. Let V3 be the component of PBer1∖Γ with boundary ξg and containing [math]. Then the set of states in this case is
[TABLE]
and the transition matrix P is given by
[TABLE]
Then the unique stationary probability vector for P is (0,0,1/2,1/3,1/6). Thus μN(V1)=1/2, μN(V2)=1/3 and μN(V3)=1/6, where μN is the equilibrium measure for N. Thus, the weak limit μ of the measures μNt is
[TABLE]
To prove Theorem 1.1, based on Theorem 4.8, now we consider the case when there exists n0≥1 such that Nn0(ξg)∈HVξg.
Theorem 4.11**.**
Suppose there exists n≥1 such that Nn(ξg)∈HVξg. Let μ be the weak limit of measures μt. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
According to the orbit O(ξg) of the Gauss point ξg, we construct different vertices set Γ such that the pair (N,Γ) is analytically stable. And then we apply Propositions 4.3 and 4.4.
To ease notations, in the following proof we let ξk:=Nk(ξg) for k≥0, and let v∞∈TξgPBer1 such that ∞∈Bξg(v∞)−. Note
[TABLE]
Hence, we have two cases.
Case I: There exists n0≥1 such that ξn0∈HV. Without loss of generality, let n0 be the smallest such positive integer. Set
[TABLE]
Then the pair (N,Γ) is analytically stable. In this case there may exist v∈TξgPBer1 such that Bξg(v)− is a J-domain. Indeed, if ξn0∈HV∖V, there exists at most one such v; if ξn0∈V, there may exist most than one but finitely many such v. If there is no such v, then the weak limit of μt is δ∞. Now we suppose that there exist v1,⋯,vm∈TξgPBer1 such that each Uj:=Bξg(vj)− is a J-domain for 1≤j≤m. For now, we assume m=1. It needs no more effort to prove the case when m>1. Let W1=N(U1). Then W1 is a Berkovich disk with boundary ξ1. In fact, W1 contains a union of elements in J(Γ). We may assume W1 is in J(Γ). Otherwise, we consider the sum of equilibrium Γ-measure of the corresponding elements in J(Γ). Let P be the transition matrix for the J-domains and let ν be the unique stationary probability vector. Then we have the (W1,U1)-entry PW1,U1 in P is nonzero and all other entries in U1-column are zeros. Thus
[TABLE]
where ν(W1) and ν(U1) are the W1-th and U1-th entries, respectively. Note ν(W1)+ν(U1)≤1. Thus
[TABLE]
Since the local degree degπHV(ξg)N≤d−1, then
[TABLE]
So we have
[TABLE]
By Proposition 4.4, the equilibrium Γ-measure charges ν(U1) at U1 and charges 1−ν(U1) at Bξg(v∞)−. By Proposition 4.3, we have
[TABLE]
Case II: Suppose that the Cases I does not hold and there exists n0≥1 such that ξn0∈(ξg,πHV(ξg)). Without loss of generality, let n0 be the smallest such positive integer. Now consider the segments (ξi,πHV(ξi)). If there exists i such that πHV(ξi)=πHV(ξi+1), then there exits ηi(k)∈(ξi,πHV(ξi)) such that N(k−1)n0+1(ηi(k))=πHV(ξi+1). Let ηi=k→∞limηi(k). Then ηi∈(ξi,πHV(ξi)). Let O(ηi) be the orbit of ηi. Note O(ηi) has n0 elements. Set
[TABLE]
Let η=O(ηi)∩(ξg,πHV(ξg)). Then ξn0∈(ξg,η) an hence ξn∈(ξq,Nq(η)), where n≡qmodn0. Note (ξi,Ni(η)) is in a F-domain for i≥0. Hence the pair (N,Γ) is analytically stable. Note the equilibrium measure μN on PBer1 does not charge the Gauss point ξg. Then by the same argument in Case I, we can get
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 4.12**.**
Since Nt converges subalgebraically to the point N in I(d), by Lemma 2.15, we know N has a unique hole at [1:0]∈P1 with depth d. Then by Proposition 4.2(2), we have μ({∞})≥1/2. Theorems 4.8 and 4.11 give a better lower bound for μ({∞}).
For the quadratic case, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.13**.**
If d=2, then μ=δ∞.
Proof.
By Theorems 4.8 and 4.11, we only need to show the case that there exists n0 such that Nn0(ξg)∈[v,ξg), where v∈V is the unique point. We claim Nn0(ξg)∈[v,ξg) for all n≥1. Since degvN=2, we have Nn(ξg)=v for all n≥1. If Nℓ(ξg)∈(v,ξg) for some ℓ≥1, then for all n≥1, the segments (v,Nn(ξg)) are disjoint with the ramification locus RN. Hence ρ(v,ξg)=ρ(v,Nℓ(ξg)), Thus Nℓ(ξg)=ξg. It is a contradiction. So μ=δ∞.
∎
5. Rescaling Limits
5.1. Definitions and Known Results
In this section, following Kiwi [25], we give the definitions and known results about rescalings and rescaling limits.
Recall that a moving frame is a holomorphic family of degree 1 rational maps.
Definition 5.1**.**
Let {ft}⊂Ratd be a holomophic family. A moving frame {Mt}⊂PGL2(C) is called a rescaling for {ft} of period q if there exist g∈Rate with e≥2 and a finite subset S⊂P1 such that as t→0,
[TABLE]
We say g is a rescaling limit on P1∖S. The minimal q≥1 such the above holds is called the period of the rescaling {Mt}.
Recall that the associated map f for a holomorphic family {ft} of degree d≥1 rational maps is a rational map in L(z), which can act on Berkovich space PBer1. Let f and M be the associated maps for {ft} and {Mt} in Definition 5.1. By Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5, the convergence holds in Definition 5.1 if and only if there exits q≥1 such that the reduction Red(M−1∘fq∘M) has degree at least 2. In general, let M∈PGL2(L). Then M induces naturally a family {Mt} of PGL2(C). We say {Mt} is a generalized rescaling for the holomorphic family {ft} if there exists q≥1 such that the reduction Red(M−1∘fq∘M) has degree at least 2. For example, {Mt(z)=t−1/2z} is a generalized rescaling for the holomorphic family {ft(z)=tz3}, but it is not a rescaling for {ft}.
Naturally we are interested in the sequence in the moduli space ratd. So we define equivalent relations on the rescalings, and count the number of the rescalings, up to these equivalence relations.
Definition 5.2**.**
Let {Mt}⊂PGL2(C) and {Lt}⊂PGL2(C). We say {Mt} and {Lt} are equivalent if there exists M∈PGL2(C) such that Mt−1∘Lt→M.
The “equivalent” in Definition 5.2 defines an equivalence relation. Let [{Mt}] be the equivalence class of {Mt}.
Lemma 5.3**.**
[25, Lemma 3.6]**
Suppose {Mt} and {Lt} are two moving frames. Let M and L be the associated maps for {Mt} and {Lt}, respectively. Then {Mt} and {Lt} are equivalent if and only if M(ξg)=L(ξg).
Note any rational map in L(z) maps the Gauss point ξg to a type II point. For any type II point ξ∈PBer1, there exists an affine map A(z)∈L[z] such that A(ξg)=ξ. If ξ is the image of ξg under the associated map M for some move frame {Mt}, we can choose the associated map A for an affine move frame {At} such that A(ξg)=ξ.
Lemma 5.4**.**
For any moving frame {Mt(z)}, there exists an affine moving frame {At(z)} such that {At} is equivalent to {Mt}.
Proof.
First note that for any type II point ξa,r in PBer1, there exists an affine map A(z)∈L[z] such that A(ξg)=ξa,r. Indeed, since ξa,r is a type II point, then there exits b∈L such that ∣b−a∣L=r. Then let A(z)=bz+a. Now let M be the associated map for {Mt} and let ξa,r=M(ξg). If M∈L(z) has no pole in D(0,1)⊂L, then M(D(0,1)) is a disk in L. We can choose a=M(0). Thus a∈C((t)). Note M(1)∈C((t)). Let n∈Z such that ∣tn∣=∣M(1)−M(0)∣. Then r=∣tn∣. Thus we can set At(z)=tnz+a(t). If M∈L(z) has a pole in D(0,1)⊂L, we can write M=M1∘M2∘M3, where M1 and M3 are affine map and M2(z)=1/z. It is sufficient to show that there exist an=an(t)∈C((t)) and r=∣tm∣, where m=m(n)∈Z, such that ξan,rn:=M2(ξ0,∣tn∣) for any n∈Z. It follows immediately from M2(ξ0,∣tn∣)=ξ0,∣t−n∣.
∎
With Lemma 5.4 we can count the number of equivalent classes of rescalings by only considering the affine representatives.
The following result allows us to consider the action of a holomorphic {ft} on the set {[{Mt}]} of equivalence classes of moving frames.
Lemma 5.5**.**
[25, Lemma 3.7]**
Let {ft} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥1 rational maps. If {Mt} is a moving frame, then there exists a moving frame {Lt} such that for the associated maps f,M and L,
[TABLE]
In fact, the moving frame {Lt} in Lemma 5.5 is unique up to equivalence. Thus it gives us an action
[TABLE]
The dynamical dependence of moving frames is defined by considering the orbits of the equivalence classes of moving frames under the action of {ft}.
Definition 5.6**.**
Let {ft}⊂Ratd be a holomorphic family of degree d≥1 rational maps. Let {Mt} and {Lt} be moving frames. We say {Mt} and {Lt} are dynamically dependent if there is ℓ≥0 such that
[TABLE]
Otherwise, we say {Mt} and {Lt} are dynamically independent
The dynamical dependence also gives us an equivalent relation. From the definitions, we know if two moving frames are equivalent, then they are dynamically dependent. But the converse is not true in general.
Remark 5.7**.**
Let {Mt} and {Lt} be two rescalings for a holomorphic family {ft} of degree d≥2 rational maps.
(1)
If {Mt} and {Lt} are equivalent, then the corresponding rescaling limits are conjugate.
2. (2)
If {Mt} and {Lt} are dynamically dependent, then there exist rational maps g1 and g2 such that the corresponding rescaling limits are g1∘g2 and g2∘g1, respectively [25, Lemma 3.10].
To count the number of dynamically independent rescalings for a holomorphic family {ft}, Kiwi [25] related to the dynamically independent rescalings to the type II periodic points of the associated map f on PBer1.
Proposition 5.8**.**
[25, Proposition 3.4]**
Let {ft} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 rational maps and {Mt} be a moving frame. Let f and M be the associated rational maps for {ft} and {Mt}, respectively. Then for all ℓ≥1, the following are equivalent.
(1)
There exists a rational map g:P1→P1 of degree e≥1 such that, as t→0,
[TABLE]
where S⊂P1 is a finite set.
2. (2)
fℓ(ξ)=ξ, where ξ=M(ξg), and degξfℓ=e.
In the case in which (1) and (2) hold, Tξfℓ:TξPBer1→TξPBer1 is conjugate via a P1-isomorphism to g:P1→P1.
By counting the repelling cycles of type II points, Kiwi [25] gave the number of dynamically independent rescalings that lead to nonpostcritical finite rescaling limits. And by combining with the properties of quadratic rational maps [24], he gave a complete description of rescaling limits for a quadratic holomorphic family.
Proposition 5.9**.**
[25, Theorem 1]**
Let d≥2, and consider a holomorphic family {ft}⊂Ratd. There are at most 2d−2 pairwise dynamically independent rescalings whose rescaling limits are not postcritically finite.
Moreover, if d=2, then there are at most two dynamically independent rescalings of period at least 2. Furthermore, in the case that a rescaling of period at least
2 exists, exactly one of the following holds:
(1)
{ft}* has exactly two dynamically independent rescalings of periods q′>q>1. The period q rescaling limit is a quadratic rational map with a multiple fixed point and a prefixed critical point. The period q′ rescaling limit is a quadratic polynomial, modulo conjugacy.*
2. (2)
{ft}* has a rescaling whose corresponding limit is a quadratic rational map with a multiple fixed point and every other rescaling is dynamically dependent on it.*
5.2. Period 1 Rescalings for Newton Maps
In this subsection, we study the period 1 rescalings for a holimorphic family of Newton maps and we prove Theorem 1.2(1). Then using the rescaling limits induced by the these rescalings, we construct a compactification of the moduli space nmd.
Let {Nr(t)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps with r(t)={r1(t),⋯,rd(t)}. Regard ri(t) as a point in L and denote by ri. Let N be the associated map for {Nr(t)}. Recall the subset V is the set of internal vertices of the convex hull Hfix=Hull({r1,⋯,rd,∞}). Then any point ξ∈V has valance at least 3 in Hfix. Moreover, by Proposition 3.13, we know V is the set of repelling fixed points of N in HBer.
Theorem 5.10**.**
Let {Nr(t)(z)} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥2 Newton maps. Then up to equivalence, {Nr(t)(z)} has at most d−1 rescalings of period 1. Moreover, let {Mt} be a period 1 rescaling for {Nr(t)(z)}, then, as t→0, the subalgebraic limit of Mt−1∘Nr(t)(z)∘Mt is conjugate to a (degenerate) map in NMd.
Proof.
Let V be as above and let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nr(t)}. Note two period 1 rescalings are equivalent if and only if they are dynamically dependent. By Proposition 5.9, we know there are finitely many dynamically independent rescalings for {Nr(t)(z)}. Hence there are finitely many inequivalent rescalings. Suppose {Mt(1)(z)},⋯,{Mt(k)(z)} are the pairwise inequivalent period 1 rescalings for {Nr(t)(z)}. Let M(1),⋯,M(k) be the associated map for {Mt(1)},⋯,{Mt(k)}, respectively. Then by Proposition 5.8, for each i, we have M(i)(ξg) is a repelling fixed point of N. Thus, by Lemma 3.13, it follows that M(i)(ξg)∈V. Note V has at most d−1 elements. Thus k≤d−1.
By Lemma 5.4, we can choose an affine representative in each equivalence class [{Mt(i)}]. By Remark 5.7, we know for different representatives of [{Mt(i)}], the corresponding rescaling limits are conjugate. Thus, we may assume Mt(i) is affine. Note (Mt(i))−1∘Nr(t)∘Mt(i) is still a degree d Newton maps. Letting t→0, we get that the limit of (Mt(i))−1∘Nr(t)∘Mt(i) is a point in NMd.
∎
Remark 5.11**.**
For any rational map ϕ∈L(z) of degree d≥2, Rumely [42, Corollary 6.2] proved ϕ has at most d−1 repelling fixed points in the hyperbolic space HBer. Hence for any holomorphic family {ft} of degree d≥2 rational maps, by Proposition 5.8, we know {ft} has at most d−1 rescalings of period 1, up to equivalence.
Now we give some examples to illustrate the period 1 rescalings and corresponding rescaling limits for holomorphic families of degree d≥2 Newton maps.
Example 5.12**.**
Cubic Newton maps.
Consider the cubic Newton map Nr(t)(z), where r(t)={0,1,r3(t)} for some holomorphic function r3(t). If Nr(t)(z) is nondegenerate, then up to equivalence, {Mt(z)=z} is the unique period 1 rescaling for {Nr(t)(z)}. If Nr(t)(z) is degenerate, without loss of generality, we suppose r3(t)→0 as t→0. Let r3=r3(t)∈L. Then the set V contains only two points ξ0,∣r3∣ and the Gauss point ξg. Thus Nr(t)(z) has two period 1 rescalings.
Let Lt(z)=r3(t)z. Then the associated map L maps ξg to the point ξ0,∣r3∣. Thus {Lt} is a period 1 rescaling. Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
Thus Lt−1∘Nr(t)∘Lt converges to N{0,1,∞}=N{0,1} locally uniformly on P1∖{∞}.
Note the associated map of the moving frame {Mt(z)=z} fixes the Gauss point. Thus {Mt} is also a period 1 rescaling. And we have
[TABLE]
Thus Mt−1∘Nr(t)∘Mt converges to N{0,0,1} locally uniformly on P1∖{0}.
In this example, the rescaling limits N{0,1} and N{0,0,1} are points in NM3.
Example 5.13**.**
Quartic Newton maps.
Let r(t)={0,1,t,2t}. Consider the Newton map Nr(t). Then the set V contains two points ξ0,∣t∣ and ξg. Thus Nr(t)(z) has two period 1 rescalings.
Let Lt(z)=tz. Then the associated map L maps ξg to the point ξ0,∣t∣. Thus {Lt} is a period 1 rescaling. And we have
[TABLE]
Thus Lt−1∘Nr(t)∘Lt converges to N{0,1,2} locally uniformly on P1∖{∞}.
Note the associated map of the moving frame {Mt(z)=z} fixes the Gauss point. Thus {Mt} is also a period 1 rescaling. And we have
we have
[TABLE]
Thus Mt−1∘Nr(t)∘Mt converges to N{0,0,0,1} locally uniformly on P1∖{0}.
In this example, the limits N{0,1,2,∞} and N{0,0,0,1} are points in NM4.
Now let r(t)={0,1,t,t2} and consider the Newton map Nr(t). Then the set V contains three points ξ0,∣t2∣,ξ0,∣t∣ and ξg. Thus Nr(t)(z) has three period 1 rescalings.
Let Lt(z)=t2z. Then the associated map L maps ξg to the point ξ0,∣t2∣. Thus {Lt} is a period 1 rescaling. And we have
[TABLE]
Thus Lt−1∘Nr(t)∘Lt converges to N{0,1} locally uniformly on P1∖{∞}.
Let Kt(z)=tz. Then the associated map K maps ξg to the point ξ0,∣t∣. Thus {Kt} is a period 1 rescaling. And we have
[TABLE]
Thus Kt−1∘Nr(t)∘Kt converges to N{0,0,1,∞} locally uniformly on P1∖{0,∞}.
Note the associated map of the moving frame {Mt(z)=z} fixes the Gauss point. Thus {Mt} is also a period 1 rescaling. And we have
[TABLE]
Thus Mt−1∘Nr(t)∘Mt converges to N{0,0,0,1} locally uniformly on P1∖{0}.
In this example, the limits N{0,1,∞,∞}, N{0,0,1,∞} and N{0,0,0,1} are points in NM4.
Since ∞ is the unique repelling fixed points of Newton maps, the moduli space of degree d≥2 Newton maps is naturally defined by
[TABLE]
modulo the action by conjugation of affine maps. In the remaining of this subsection, we will use the rescaling limits induced by rescalings of period 1 to give a new compactification for the space nmd, which is quite different from the compactification nmd induced by geometric invariant theory in [35].
We first define a relation ∼ on P2d+1×P2d+1. For f=Hff^,g=Hgg^∈P2d+1, we say f∼g if there exists M∈PGL2(C) such that M−1∘f^∘M=g^. Denote by [f]∼ for the equivalent class of f. Let NMd{0,1} be the subset of NMd consisting of degree d≥2 Newton maps Nr, where r={0,1,r3,⋯,rd}⊂C is a set of d distinct points. Let NMd{0,1} be the compactification of NMd{0,1} in P2d+1. Then for any f=Hff^∈NMd{0,1}, we have degf^≥2. Moreover, for any point g=Hgg^∈NMd with degg^≥2, there exists f∈NMd{0,1} such that f∼g. Thus, we have
Lemma 5.14**.**
For d≥3,
[TABLE]
To relate NMd{0,1}/∼ to the rescaling limits,
we now need to characteristic the set of rescaling limits induced by period 1 rescalings for a holomorphic family of Newton maps.
Lemma 5.15**.**
For any Hff^∈NMd with degf^≥2, there exist a holomorphic family {Nt} of degree d≥2 Newton maps and a period 1 rescaling {Mt} for {Nt} such that the corresponding rescaling limit of {Mt} for {Nt} is f^.
Proof.
Since Hff^∈NMd, there exists a holomorphic family {Nr(t)}⊂NMd such that NtsaHff^, as t→0, in P2d+1. Set Mt(z)=z. Then {Mt} is a period 1 rescaling for {Nt} with rescaling limit f^ since degf^≥2.
∎
Fix d≥3 and denote by RL(NMd,1) the set of rescaling limits induced by a period 1 rescaling for some holomorphic family of degree d Newton maps. Then by Theorem 5.10 and Lemma 5.15,
[TABLE]
Consider the quotient space RL(NMd,1)/∼ associated with the quotient topology. Then
[TABLE]
Since NMd{0,1} is compact, then the quotient space NMd{0,1}/∼ is also compact. Hence RL(NMd,1)/∼ is compact.
Define
[TABLE]
Then nmdRL is compact and contains nmd as a dense subset. We call nmdRL is the compactification of the moduli space nmd via rescaling limits.
Proposition 5.16**.**
For d≥3, the space nmdRL is not Hausdorff.
Proof.
To show nmdRL is not Hausdorff, it is sufficient to show the relation ∼ is not closed on NMd{0,1}×NMd{0,1}. Set r(t)={0,1,t,r4(t),⋯,rd(t)} and r′(t)={0,1/t,1,r4(t)/t,⋯,rd(t)/t},
where ri(t)=rj(t) if i=j and ∣ri(t)∣=o(∣t∣), as t→0, for i=4,⋯,d.
Let Mt(z)=tz. Then we have if t=0,
[TABLE]
Hence [Nr(t)]∼=[Nr′(t)]∼.
However, as t→0, we have Nr(t)saN{0,1,0,⋯,0} and Nr′(t)saN{0,∞,1,0,⋯,0}. Note
[TABLE]
Thus ∼ is not closed on NMd{0,1}×NMd{0,1}.
∎
For cubic Newton maps, we have
[TABLE]
and there are no open sets can separate [N{0,1,∞}] and [N{0,0,1}].
As another example, we state explicitly the elements in the space nm4RL. Note NM4{0,1}={N{0,1,r3,r4}:r3,r4∈C}. Thus
[TABLE]
5.3. Higher Period Rescalings for Newton Maps
In this subsection, we first prove a sufficient and necessary condition for the existence of higher periods generalized rescalings for a holomorphic family of Newton maps. Then we prove Theorem 1.2(2).
Recall that for two points ξ1,ξ2 in the affine Berkovich space ABer1, the point ξ1∨ξ2 corresponds to the smallest closed disk containing the disks related to ξ1 and ξ2 in L, and the path distance metric ρ(ξ1,ξ2) on HBer is defined by
[TABLE]
First, the following example shows that there do exist higher period rescalings for a holomorphic family of quartic Newton maps. Later we will show for any quadratic polynomial P, there exits a holomorphic family {Nt} of quartic Newton maps such that P is a rescaling limit of a period 2 rescaling for {Nt}.
We construct a holomorphic family {Nr(t)} of quartic Newton maps such that the associated map N:PBer1→PBer1 has two type II repelling points, say V={ξ1,ξ2}, and a free critical point c satisfying the following: Let ξ1 be the visible point from c on the convex hull HV, and let v∈Tξ1PBer1 be the direction such that c∈Bξ1(v)−. Then (1) at ξ1, for the induced map N∗:TξPBer1→TN(ξ)PBer1, we have N∗(v) is an attracting fixed point of N∗; (2)N2(c)∈Bξ1(v)−; and (3)ρ(c∨N2(c),ξ1)≥2ρ(ξ1,ξ2).
Consider r(t)={r1(t),r2(t),r3(t),r4(t)}, where
[TABLE]
Let Mt(z)=5t2z/18. Since as t→0
[TABLE]
Thus {Mt} is not a period 1 rescaling for the holomorphic family {Nr(t)}. However, {Mt} is a period 2 rescaling for {Nr(t)}. Indeed,
[TABLE]
For a rational map ϕ:PBer1→PBer1 and a point ξ∈PBer1, we say v∈TξPBer1 is a critical direction at ξ if v is a critical point of the induced map ϕ∗:TξPBer1→Tϕ(ξ)PBer1. If v is a critical direction of ϕ at ξ, then there exists at least one critical point of ϕ in the Berkovich disk Bξ(v)−. Recall that Crit(ϕ) is the set of critical points for a rational map ϕ(z)∈L(z) in PL1.
Recall that for a holomorphic family {Nt} of Newton maps, the subtree HV⊂PBer1 is the convex hull of the set V of type II repelling fixed points of the associated map N. Inspired by Example 5.17, we now state a sufficient and necessary condition for the existence of higher periods generalized rescalings for holomorphic families of Newton maps.
Proposition 5.18**.**
For d≥3, let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d Newton maps, and let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nt}. Then {Nt} has a period q≥2 generalized rescaling if and only if there exist a point v∈V, a critical direction v∈TvPBer1 of N∗ at v, a critical point c∈Crit(N) in the Berkovich disk Bv(v)− and an integer 1≤ℓ≤q−1 satisfying the following:
(1)
Let {Mt}⊂PGL2(C) be such that the associated map M satisfies M(ξg)=v. At v, after identifying TvPBer1 to P1, the direction N∗ℓ(v) is a hole of the subalgebraic limit of Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt;
2. (2)
Nq(c)∈Bv(v)−;
3. (3)
Let η=c∨Nq(c). For k≥1, there exists ξk∈N−kq(v)∩(v,η) such that
[TABLE]
where ξ∞=k→∞limξk.
In particular, if (1)−(3) holds, the point ξ∞ is periodic of period q.
Before we prove Proposition 5.18, we illustrate the conditions (1)−(3) using Example 5.17. In this example,
[TABLE]
and q=2, ℓ=1. The visible points from both free critical points c1 and c2 to HV are ξg, that is, πHV(c1)=πHV(c2)=ξg. Let c1 be the critical point such that πHV(N(c1))=ξ2,∣t∣ and let v∈TξgPBer1 such that c1∈Bξg(v)−. Then at ξg, N∗(v)∈TξgPBer1 and ξ2,∣t∣∈Bξg(N∗(v))−. Let w∈Tξ2,∣t∣PBer1 such that N(c1)∈Bξ2,∣t∣(w)−. Then at ξ2,∣t∣, we have N∗(w)∈Tξ2,∣t∣PBer1 and ξg∈Bξ2,∣t∣(N∗(w))−. Moreover, we have N2(c1)∈Bξg(v)−. Considering ξk and ξ∞ as in Proposition 5.18, we have ξ∞ is a 2-periodic point for N and η=ξ∞, as it is shown in Figure 4. Moreover, we have
By Proposition 5.8, the family {Nt} has a period q≥2 generalized rescaling if and only if the associated map N has a q-periodic repelling cycles of type II points in PBer1.
We first show the “only if” part. If (1) does not hold, then any critical point of N are contained in the Berkovich Fatou set FBer(N). Moreover, for any c∈Crit(N), the segment [c,πHV(c)) is in FBer(N). Note the repelling cycles of type II points intersect with the ramification locus RN. By Lemmas 3.13 and 3.21, we know the repelling cycles of type II points are contained in V. Thus, all of them has period 1. It contradicts with the existence of higher period rescalings. If (2) does not hold, then for any c∈Crit(N), the segment [c,πHV(c)) disjoints with the periodic cycles. Thus, again the repelling cycles of type II points are contained in V. It is contradiction. Now we show (3) holds. From (1), (2) and the existence of higher period generalized rescalings, we know for k≥1, there exist unique ξk∈(N)−kq(v)∩(v,η). By Lemma 3.21, we know (v,η) is in the ramification locus RN. Then
[TABLE]
for all k≥0. So ρ(ξk,ξk+1)→0, as k→∞. Hence the sequence {ξk} converges. Therefore, ξ∞ exists. Moreover, we have Nq(ξ∞)=ξ∞. Note for any point ξ′∈(v,ξ∞), we have
[TABLE]
Hence there is no q-periodic point of N in the segment (v,ξ∞). Thus (3) holds.
Now we prove the “if” part. Note the conditions (1)−(3) imply the point ξ∞ is a fixed point of Nq. Moreover, by Lemma 3.21, we know ξ∞∈RN. Thus ξ∞ is a repelling fixed point of Nq and ρ(ξk,ξk+1)≥2ρ(ξk+1,ξk+2). Hence ξ∞ is a type II point. So {Nt} has a generalized rescaling of period q.
∎
Remark 5.19**.**
As in Proposition 5.18, from the proof, for any point ξ′∈(v,ξ∞), we know Nq(ξ′)=ξ′. Let v∈Tξ∞PBer1 with v∈Bξ∞(v)−. Then Nq(ξ′)∈Bξ∞(v)− with ρ(Nq(ξ′),ξ∞)>ρ(ξ′,ξ∞).
In general, the orbit of ξ∞ may intersect the ramification locus RN with more than one points. For 0≤j<q, let vj=πHV(Nj(c)). If π[vj,Nj(ξ∞)](a)∈(vj,Nj(ξ∞)) for all a∈Crit(N), i.e. the visible points from all critical points of N to the segment [vj,Nj(ξ∞)] lie in the endpoints {vj,Nj(ξ∞)}, then there exists K≥2 such that
[TABLE]
Indeed, let vj∈TvjPBer1 such that Nj(c)∈Bvj(vj)− and set
[TABLE]
Moreover, in this case, we have
[TABLE]
The following two results show there are only finitely many such ξ∞s for Newton map N.
Proposition 5.20**.**
For d≥3, let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d Newton maps, and let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nt}. Then for each c∈Crit(N), the segment (c,πHV(c)) contains at most one type II repelling periodic point.
Proof.
By Lemma 3.19, we know there is no type II repelling periodic point in (c,πHV(c)) if πHr(c)∈/V. Now we consider the critical points c∈Crit(N) with πHr(c)∈V. For such c, to ease notation, let Lc:=(c,πHV(c)). Suppose Lc contains a type II repelling periodic point ξ∞ of period q≥2. Set ξ=πHV(ξ∞). By Remark 5.19, we can choose ξ∞ such that there is no repelling periodic point in (ξ,ξ∞). Suppose ξ′∈Lc∖(ξ,ξ∞] is another type II repelling periodic point. Let v∈Tξ∞PBer1 such that ξ′∈Bξ∞(v)−. By Corollary 3.17, for 1≤ℓ≤q, we know Nℓ(Bξ∞(v)−) is a Bekovich disk with boundary at Nℓ(ξ∞). Thus ξ′ has period kq for some integer k≥1. Now consider the segment [ξ∞,ξ′]. For 1≤ℓ≤kq, again by Corollary 3.17, we know Nℓ([ξ∞,ξ′])=[Nℓ(ξ∞),Nℓ(ξ′)] is a segment. Thus
It is a contradiction. Thus ξ∞ is the only type II repelling periodic points in Lc.
∎
We say a critical point c∈PL1 for a Newton map N∈L(z) is totally free if at the point ξ:=πHV(c), the vector vc is not in the immediate basin of any (super)attracting fixed point of N∗, where vc∈TξPBer1 with c∈Bξ(vc)−. If a critical point c∈N is not totally free, then the segment (c,πHV(c)) is in the Berkovich Fatou set FBer(N). Hence, in this case, there is no type II repelling periodic point in (c,πHV(c)). Thus, by Proposition 5.20, the number of totally free critical points give a upper bound of the the number of type II repelling cycles for N.
Proposition 5.21**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps and let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {Nt}. Then N has at most d−3 totally free critical points. In particular, N has at most d−3 type II repelling cycles.
Proof.
At a point ξ∈V, let Cξ be the set of totally free critical points c of N such that πHV(c)=ξ. Let Eξ be the set of attracting fixed points of N∗. Then at ξ, we have
[TABLE]
where ris are the superattracting fixed points of N. Note there are #V−1 many points in V such that the corresponding limits have ∞ as a hole, and hence
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
Note #V≥2. Therefore, N has at most d−3 totally free critical points.
∎
Remark 5.22**.**
Recall that the classical Julia set JI(ϕ) for a rational map ϕ∈K(z) over a complete and algebraically closed non-archimedean field K is the Julia set for the map ϕ:PK1→PK1. It is known that JI(ϕ)=JBer(ϕ)∩PK1 [4, Theorem 10.67]. The Hsia’s conjecture [20, Conjecture 4.3] asserts that the repelling periodic points in PK1 are dense in JI(ϕ). Bézivin [7, Theorem 3] proved the Hsia’s conjecture holds if there exists at least one repelling periodic point in JI(ϕ). For a Newton map N(z)∈L(z), same argument shows N has at most d−3 type II repelling cycles. Rivera-Letelier [4, Theorem 10.88] proved the closure of the repelling cycles in PBer1 is the Berkovich Julia set. Thus, there are type I repelling cycles for Newton maps over L. Hence the Hsia’s conjecture holds for Newton maps N∈L(z).
Now we can give an upper bound of the number of higher periodic (generalized) rescalings for holomorphic families of degree d≥3 Newton maps, which sharps the Kiwi’s general results in [25]. First,
Theorem 5.23**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps. Then there are at most d−3 dynamically independent (generalized) rescalings of periods of period at least 2 for {Nt}. Moreover, all the corresponding rescaling limits have degree at most 2d−3.
Proof.
By Propositions 5.8 and 5.21, it follows that {Nt} has at most d−3 (generalized) rescalings of periods at least 2. Let {Mt} be a rescaling of period q≥2 for {Nt} and f^ is the corresponding rescaling limit. Denote N:PBer1→PBer1 the associated map for {Nt}. Then by Proposition 5.8, we have degf^=degξNq, where ξ=M(ξg) and M is the associated map for {Nt}. Let
Let ℓ:=#I. Then, by the relation of arithmetic and geometric means, we have
[TABLE]
Let m=2(d−3)/ℓ. Note ℓ and m are integers. Then
[TABLE]
where we get the inequality by taking logarithm.
∎
Corollary 5.24**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of cubic Newton maps. Then there is no (generalized) rescalings of higher periods for {Nt}.
For a holomorphic family {Nt} of degree d≥3 Newton maps, if {Mt} is an affine rescaling of period q≥2 for {Nt}, then Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt converges subalgebraically to the point in I(d). For if otherwise, by the continuity of iteration away from the indeterminacy locus, Mt−1∘Nt∘Mt converges locally uniformly to a rational map of degree at least 2 because
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.25**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps, and let {Mt} be a rescaling of period q≥2 for {Nt}. Then the rescaling limit of {Mt} for {Nt} is conjugate to a polynomial.
Proof.
By Remark 5.7, it is sufficient to show the rescaling limit is a polynomial if Mt is affine. Now we assume Mt is affine and suppose Mt−1∘Ntq∘Mt converges subalgebraically to f=Hff^. Then f^ is the corresponding rescaling limit of the rescaling {Mt} for {Nt} of period q. Now we show f^ is a polynomial.
Set
[TABLE]
Then in projective coordinates, as t→0,
[TABLE]
Let N:PBer1→PBer1 be the associated map for {N~t}. Then by Proposition 5.8, we have
[TABLE]
Let μ be the weak limit of measures μNt. By Proposition 4.8, we have μ=δ∞. By Proposition 4.2, as t→0, the measure μNtq converges weakly to μf since f∈I(dq) and μNtq=μNt. Then we have
[TABLE]
Write f([X:Y])=Hf(X,Y)f^([X:Y]). Then by the definition of μf in Section 4, we have [1:0] is the unique zero of Hf(X,Y) and f^−1([1:0])=[1:0]. Thus f^ is a polynomial.
∎
Remark 5.26**.**
Alternatively, Theorem 5.25 is also a consequence of Corollary 3.17. Indeed, let N be the associated map of {Nt} and let ξ∈PBer1 be a type II repelling periodic point of period q≥2. Let v∞∈TξPBer1 be such that ∞∈Bξ(v∞)−. Then v∞ is a totally invariant direction for the induced map N∗q:TξPBer1→TξPBer1. Hence, at ξ, the map N∗q is a polynomial.
Remark 5.27**.**
If the holomorphic family {Nt} of Newton maps has a periodic q≥2 rescaling, let ξ∈PBer1 be a corresponding periodic point of period q for the associated map N, which lies in the Ramification locus RN. By Proposition 5.18, we know ξ in the Berkovich Julia set JBer(N). As in the proof of Theorem 4.8, if v∈TξPBer1 satisfies that Bξ(v)−∩JBer(N)=∅, then ∞∈Bξ(v)−. Hence, if we consider the vertices set Γ={ξ}, then the equilibrium Γ-measure only charges the disk Bξ(v)− containing ∞.
Recall that Ratdss⊂P2d+1 is the semistable locus. Silverman gave the following criterion of semistablity.
Lemma 5.28**.**
[45, Proposition 2.2]**
Let f∈P2d+1. Then f∈Ratdss if and only if there exists M∈PGL2(C) such that
[TABLE]
with ai=0 for all i≥(d+1)/2 and bi=0 for all i≥(d−1)/2.
Considering the holes and depths, DeMarco [10] gave another way to describe Ratdss.
Lemma 5.29**.**
[10, Section 3]**
Let f=Hff^∈P2d+1. Then f=Hff^∈Ratdss if and only if the depth of each hole is ≤(d+1)/2 and if dh(f)≥d/2, then f^(h)=h.
The following result claims that higher periodic rescalings lead to non-semistable subalgebraical limits.
Proposition 5.30**.**
Let {Nt} be a holomorphic family of degree d≥3 Newton maps, and let {Mt} be a rescaling of period q≥2 for {Nt}. Suppose that Mt−1∘Ntq∘Mt converges to f subalgebraically. Then f∈Ratdqss.
Proof.
We write f=Hff^. By Theorem 5.25, we can assume f^ is a polynomial. From the proof of Theorem 5.25, we know Hole(f)={∞}. To show f∈Ratdqss, by Lemma 5.29, it is sufficient to show the hole z=∞ has depth d∞(f)≥dq/2.
If 2≤q≤d−3, let {ξ0,ξ1,⋯,ξq−1} be the corresponding type II repelling cycle. Without loss of generality, we suppose {ξ0,ξ1,⋯,ξq−1}∩RN={ξ0,⋯,ξℓ−1}. Then
[TABLE]
At a point ξi, let vi∈TξiPBer1 with ∞∈Bξi(v)−. For each i=0,⋯,ℓ−1, suppose there are ni critical points of N that are not in Bξi(v)−. By Lemma 3.19 and Proposition 5.21, we have
[TABLE]
Now we claim degξiN=ni+1 for 0≤i≤ℓ−1. By Lemma 3.3, there exists ξi′∈Bξi(vi)− such that the directional multiplicity mN(ξi,vi)=degξi′′N for any ξi′′∈(ξ1,ξ1′). By Lemma 3.7, we know degξi′′N≥degξiN. Thus, mN(ξi,vi)≥degξiN. Hence
[TABLE]
Let M1,M2∈PGL2(L) such that M1(ξg)=ξi and M2(ξg)=N(ξi). Then at ξi, the vector (M1−1)∗(vi) is a fixed point of (M2−1∘N∘M1)∗, and
[TABLE]
Thus, vi is a critical point of N∗ with multiplicity degN∗−1. Now without of loss generality, we suppose the ni critical points of N that are not in Bξi(v)− are in distinct directions at ξi. Then we have
[TABLE]
Thus ni=degN∗−1. It follows that
[TABLE]
Note
[TABLE]
So we have
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Therefore, d∞(f)=dq−degf^≥dq/2.
∎
For a holomorphic family {Nt} of quartic Newton maps, by Theorems 5.23 and 5.25, we know that {Nt} has at most 1 rescaling of period at least 2 and the corresponding rescaling limit is a quadratic polynomial.
To end this subsection, based on Example 5.17, we consider r~(t)={r~1(t),r~2(t),r~3(t),r~4(t)}, where
[TABLE]
Then by computation, we get {Mt(z)=5t2z/18} is a period 2 rescaling for {Nr~(t)} and the corresponding rescaling limit is
[TABLE]
Note for any quadratic polynomial P, there exists a∈C such that P is conjugate to fa. Thus, for an arbitrary quadratic polynomial, there exists a holomorphic family {Nt} of quartic Newton maps such that this polynomial is a rescaling limit of a period 2 rescaling for {Nt}.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a part of the author’s PhD thesis. He thanks his advisor Kevin Pilgrim for introducing him this topic and for fruitful discussions. The author would like to thank Jan Kiwi, Laura DeMarco and Juan Revira-Letelier for valuable comments. The author is also grateful to Matthieu Arfeux and Ken Jacobs for useful conversations.
Bibliography49
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Daniel S. Alexander. A history of complex dynamics . Aspects of Mathematics, E 24. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1994. From Schröder to Fatou and Julia.
2[2] M. Arfeux and G. Cui. Arbitrary large number of non trivial rescaling limits. Ar Xiv e-prints , June 2016.
3[3] Matthieu Arfeux. Dynamics on trees of spheres. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 95(1):177–202, 2017.
4[4] Matthew Baker and Robert Rumely. Potential theory and dynamics on the Berkovich projective line , volume 159 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010.
5[5] Robert L. Benedetto. Non-archimedean dynamics in dimension one, lecture notes. Preprints, http://math.arizona.edu/ swc/aws .
6[6] Vladimir G. Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields , volume 33 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990.
7[7] Jean-Paul Bézivin. Sur les points périodiques des applications rationnelles en dynamique ultramétrique. Acta Arith. , 100(1):63–74, 2001.
8[8] Professor Cayley. Desiderata and Suggestions: No. 3.The Newton-Fourier Imaginary Problem. Amer. J. Math. , 2(1):97, 1879.